[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.]

[0:01] You just are right. That means I can go get copy. Yeah, I
[0:11] will.
[0:30] Okay.
[0:42] I've got that on Amazon, because this is a real
[0:44] Michael Buster to carry and it's got a compass that always points 45 degrees off of North
[0:54] lucky you and it's got a whistle thank
[1:03] you because I was
[1:12] We have to go open up a.
[1:14] No, if you're like me, then you're like running late and you kind of figure out where's
[1:26] the agenda and
[1:38] it goes here's the other mouse.
[1:46] Reporting stopped.
[2:10] Reporting in progress.
[2:13] Okay, are
[2:22] we ready?
[2:24] Yes, ma'am.
[2:27] Are you ready?
[2:29] She's muted.
[2:34] Okay.
[2:34] Okay, there she is.
[2:36] Great.
[2:37] All right, let's move back to agenda.
[2:41] Thanks to everybody.
[2:41] Sorry for the slight delay there.
[2:44] She will call the...
[2:46] This is a special.
[2:48] There's an echo.
[2:55] There's...
[2:55] That's muted.
[3:06] That's muted.
[3:14] Talk now.
[3:17] What's that?
[3:17] Is
[3:25] it?
[3:28] Because my computer requires—
[3:30] What does that do? Your computer is muted.
[3:33] Right.
[3:34] Oh, she's pushing buttons.
[3:38] Maybe I can just get off zoom.
[3:41] I think it says.
[3:43] I'll just grab her half hour.
[3:45] This is it.
[3:46] This recording is done.
[3:48] What's supposed to be?
[3:50] I'll just one shouldn't take a re-minutes.
[3:53] Oh it does.
[3:54] I think it's on me.
[3:55] Join the computer audio.
[3:57] And then, make sure I'm muted.
[3:59] It's not her computer.
[4:01] But it's…
[4:06] Let's try that.
[4:08] Nope.
[4:08] It's okay.
[4:09] The computer's muted.
[4:11] The Zoom is muted.
[4:14] Mine's okay.
[4:17] Mine's okay.
[4:19] Let me…
[4:20] I'm going to leave the Zoom.
[4:24] See if that makes sense.
[4:27] it's not me okay yeah is it me now is that better okay can you hear me now I'm just
[4:42] gonna stay off zoom okay back to the agenda
[4:53] There we go, heart rate folks, again sorry for that, this is a special meeting of
[5:00] So the Board of County Commissioner of San Miguel County, Wednesday, June 15th, and normally this would be a work session but because of scheduling. We chose to make it a special meeting so that decisions can be made. We have commissioner wearing and myself and present in person. And commissioner Cooper is on Zoom. And with that, we'll call to order. As usual, we'll start with a couple of threats of silence for.
[5:29] whatever we need.
[5:47] All right, thank you. Next step will review the agenda.
[5:53] Mike, were there
[5:54] changes? The only one that is aware of is there was one decision that was going to be changed
[6:02] to a discussion, I believe, on the climate action plan perhaps? That's correct. And that would
[6:09] it's led to be shorter than the hour that it is plotted for but feedback from
[6:17] commissioners and star was that they wanted to have a chance to look at the latest
[6:23] iteration to give her direction and then I followed her that I would work on
[6:28] resolution to adopt that feature regularly. Great. Any other changes to the agenda?
[6:38] I would note that the affordable housing mitigation fee, the 30 minute slot, is very optimistic.
[6:48] So, yeah.
[6:49] As usual, we will adjust as needed.
[6:52] Any changes to the agenda?
[6:57] Okay.
[6:58] Public comments for items not on the agenda, if you have a public comment, if you have a comment
[7:03] and you are part of the public. Please raise your hand and let
[7:11] me see what's down in the chat box.
[7:14] It's a note from Mike saying Commissioner Cooper is around right.
[7:17] Okay. Good. I am not seeing any hands up so we will move on to the consent agenda.
[7:24] Any questions or comments on the consent agenda?
[7:31] If not, I move to approve the consent agenda.
[7:37] All right. Any further discussion?
[7:47] Next up on the agenda is update with Trace Rios and Uncompared Railfield offices.
[7:53] Do we have our Connie Clementson is with us?
[7:59] Yes, good morning, Madam Chair.
[8:00] Can you hear me?
[8:01] Yes, we can.
[8:02] Thank you, Connie.
[8:03] All right, I hope everybody's having a great day.
[8:06] McBee today and Susan, coming from the upper fill office,
[8:11] please invite our acting district manager, Lisa Dawson.
[8:15] So I wanted to introduce her to the board.
[8:19] Lisa, did you want to say a few words?
[8:26] Just sickle, unmute her.
[8:32] Lisa Dawson.
[8:40] Okay.
[8:41] Yes, you are now.
[8:42] Thank you.
[8:43] Good morning, everybody.
[8:44] My name is Lisa Dawson and I'm currently acting as the self-restra Street Manager up there in Launtrose.
[8:50] As Stephanie Connelly is up at the State Office and is our acting state director.
[8:55] We are uncertain in which she will be back, hopefully within by the fall.
[9:00] But yeah, I have been acting now for about a year.
[9:05] I'm happy to meet everybody here just now.
[9:08] I'm sorry that it's still on soon.
[9:10] Looking forward to meeting everybody in person.
[9:12] but I don't know where on this, what it is.
[9:16] And looking forward to having a star on a rack,
[9:18] she recently was appointed this past spring
[9:21] and we got to meet her in our first field trip.
[9:24] This past, oh, that's just a couple of weeks ago,
[9:27] it's gonna sit this past midnight,
[9:28] but it was the first of June.
[9:30] So really appreciate the opportunity to be here today
[9:33] and thank you for having me.
[9:35] And we got to turn it back to you, coach.
[9:37] All right, thank you.
[9:39] Any questions or are acting district managers
[9:45] not seeing any? Thank you everybody.
[9:50] All right so with that I can go ahead and do a
[9:53] trick update for Trisha just fill out this and then I'll turn it over to Susanne
[9:56] and for the update from a couple of minutes.
[10:20] All right. All right. All right.
[10:23] All right.
[10:29] If you want to share your screen, I think that would be helpful.
[10:33] I think I need to be given permission.
[10:37] And if we could get a copy of that, maybe staff can share a copy of this and rate.
[10:43] Yeah, I don't think we got it. Connie, sorry.
[10:48] Alright, and who do I need to email that to in the future?
[10:51] Because I thought I said it to Carmen.
[10:53] Carmen W. At San Miguel County CO.gov.
[10:59] Yeah.
[11:06] I have to go through this.
[11:09] We can.
[11:10] Very
[11:13] good.
[11:14] So I have several items to go through this morning.
[11:17] So I'll try to go through those quickly.
[11:19] And I apologize if you didn't get to preview this document.
[11:22] So I'll make sure that the commissioners get that.
[11:25] Because there's a lot of words on it.
[11:26] So I apologize that I have to go quickly.
[11:30] And they may not have given you the time you needed to.
[11:33] to take a look at these.
[11:34] But I wanted to update you first.
[11:37] We are in stage two fire restrictions today,
[11:40] starting today in the Trisios Galapagos
[11:42] and Kenans of the ancients.
[11:44] So I believe that we've been coordinating
[11:46] with all the counties.
[11:47] So I can't imagine that the surprise to everybody that is,
[11:50] as you know, and we know it's pretty tough conditions out there.
[11:55] So hopefully this moisture coming through
[11:57] this week into our area fingers crossed
[12:00] will bring rain and not lightning.
[12:02] but who knows.
[12:04] All right.
[12:05] So jumping into our planning processes,
[12:08] we continue to work on our tap to process
[12:11] and really appreciate Senegal County's participation in that.
[12:16] I do understand that Tracy's going to attend next week's meeting
[12:19] and ignore to answer any technical questions
[12:22] that your community might have.
[12:24] As the Commissioner's Canvas, the community over there for input
[12:29] that they would then pass on to BLM.
[12:33] Just to let you know, we have not initiated me formally,
[12:36] we're still kind of in the pre-planning phases
[12:40] to produce the best proposed action.
[12:43] We hope that provides no surprises to counties
[12:47] as it rolls out, as well as the communities
[12:51] that have been engaged, we've been going through this process
[12:54] now for two or three years in the pre-planning phase
[12:57] to make sure that the normal one we did get some transportation planning done on the
[13:04] south end of the field office and now we're really focusing on the north end so that's
[13:08] why it feels like a really long time because what kind of sort of has but this is the bulk
[13:13] of the field office and we want to make sure we're doing our due diligence with the counties
[13:18] that are involved so thanks for that moving down and if you see anything as I scroll down
[13:26] on this page, just give me a shout out.
[13:28] I've just highlighted a couple items
[13:29] so that we're not here for hours
[13:31] through all the projects.
[13:34] So with that, the next project I just wanted
[13:37] to give you an update on the Spring Creek Basin
[13:40] wild horse and burgo herd management area,
[13:43] Spring Creek Basin, obviously.
[13:45] You may maybe see some activity out there.
[13:47] We're working very diligently on getting
[13:50] a bunch more water catchments updated
[13:54] and placed out there for the horse management
[13:56] an area of tension for that we have a good water resource for the mobile forces.
[14:01] The current population is 64, we're really doing good and we've only had two or three
[14:07] a year.
[14:08] We're almost at a net zero population growth, which under our PCP program for fertility
[14:14] we've been super successful and as a result, we're very, very much hoping that the only thing
[14:21] that we need to do in the future are minor big-track gatherings, you know, for four or
[14:26] five or 10 courses. So we're not at that point now. And so that's really our goal is to
[14:32] continue to be strategic in working with our partners to ensure that we're not going
[14:37] to have to even do a big track up very often.
[14:43] Alright, moving forward.
[14:50] This is a big
[14:51] project that's coming up, the Sunday Minds Plan of Operations Update. So I think that
[14:58] if updated you briefly on...
[15:00] In the past, pinion rich resources has submitted an updated plan of operations, which is a
[15:07] thing, because that will update their mind plan under the current regulation and policies,
[15:14] and will be a far more robust strategy if the mind opens operations up again.
[15:29] So the
[15:29] currently in place into a single plan and so that's a good way to go, and it does add
[15:37] about eight acres of new disturbance that will be analyzing through the NEMA process.
[15:45] So we are currently going to be meeting with the company and their NEMA contractor here
[15:52] in the next three, four weeks and starting to get our specialists working with the contractor
[15:58] specialist and preparing the scoping documents. So we anticipate that the scoping will roll out
[16:06] probably in the next eight weeks or so. So I will look at the corporate commissioners know
[16:12] when we're getting ready to roll that scoping out. So it will certainly be of high interest to a
[16:18] lot of folks out there. And Connie, can you remind us where it says up to 18 truckloads a day
[16:26] What the route is that they'll be traveling from where they're going to be going down to the mill planning obviously
[16:39] That's only know that would be available
[16:42] So they would go from there down the highway and over to the planning area. Thank you
[16:49] You bet all right, so I'm going to come on that one
[16:53] be looking for that and we will certainly have that as a regular topic no doubt over the
[16:59] next little while as the need to receive. We've had some notice-level exploration plans you
[17:06] I know the county has received those and we participated in some of those stuff calls so the left
[17:12] those are moving forward. The copper notice as well which you guys are aware of. The next item we have
[17:21] is the disappointment pit. That's the pit that we're working together on as far as those gravel
[17:31] pit needs. We will be initiating need but to expand that pit for the future. There's plenty
[17:38] of materials there for the next several years but we want to make sure that as the counties,
[17:44] needs, gravel needs, continue that it's that seamless process in the future to be able
[17:49] to expand their pet. We also need to make sure that some of the reclamation work needs
[17:55] to be done has been under the environmental analysis. So we just met with Delores County
[18:02] to affirm what those boundaries are. And so we'll be rolling out some environmental
[18:08] you know, analysis on that and the next probably four or five months it will start
[18:12] with scoping and it is just a pivot expansion to allow them to continue
[18:17] probably 20 to 30 years into the future and this will be based on 10-year
[18:24] requirements.
[18:28] The next item I have is the DOE drum program as you may be well
[18:34] aware the Department of Energy is working on completing all of their survey
[18:38] work and safety closures and work out on all of the Department of Energy claims and that
[18:47] is many, many counties on the Western Slow but in Semigal there's a pretty big amount
[18:52] of sites that they've been working on surveying.
[18:56] They're working with the VLM on that and so we will continue to work on closure projects with
[19:05] them on that, they're going to contract maturity that work. So it's that cooperative agreement
[19:11] between the agencies to get these online closures completed.
[19:20] I think that's about it,
[19:22] other than I would love to encourage everybody to come in down to Kenanza, the ancient visitor
[19:27] center and museum. We have a new display there and really helping that folks can come visit.
[19:34] It's called hand-stone in songs, and it's a really great
[19:40] special exhibit which displays architectural drawings,
[19:44] several of our monuments, cultural sites. So it's a really neat kind of side trip
[19:49] and we hope that people can come down and visit us there. So with that act, I can stop sharing
[19:55] unless there were any questions that the county commissioners had for me today.
[20:00] Commissioner Cooper. Thanks, nice to see you, Connie.
[20:07] Point back to the Sunday lines, plan of operation,
[20:18] condition, or most or not, about the route. I just wonder, or maybe as a reminder during
[20:26] your plan of operation review process that they will, most likely it's reason
[20:32] County roads have permitted meaning to renew with us as well. So I don't know if that's
[20:37] written in your kind of operations or something that it's going to be, you know, just
[20:42] make sure that they're aware of that, often times, they have concerns when they find out that they have County
[20:49] permits. Well, we very regularly remind operators of the
[20:56] convinced that they have both at the local and state levels because sometimes there are
[21:01] state level permits as well that are required Hillary and that is the condition of their
[21:06] plan that they make sure that they have all appropriate local state federal permits.
[21:13] And sometimes there are other federal permits as well like for for permits or whatever outside
[21:17] of the injures.
[21:18] So yes, we will be happy to remind them of that.
[21:22] We are eating the managers of the company next week, so I will mention that as well.
[21:30] So it sounds like you guys haven't received anything yet, as far as permit requests or anything.
[21:36] And we're pretty early in on the process, so happy to keep reminding them Hillary.
[21:42] Thank you.
[21:43] Great, thank you.
[21:44] And it would be interesting to see how this sort of overlaps in timing with the new
[21:50] your MS role-making, which includes the temporary cessation. Sunday lines has been one of the major applications in question for that definition.
[22:04] So I'm not completely clear once the DRMS updates are role-making, how that will apply to Sunday lines.
[22:11] But I think people who are more knowledgeable than us will have to inform us about that works.
[22:20] Absolutely, Commissioner, and we're also waiting to see what's going to happen with that.
[22:25] You know, the company could just reconfigure their plan of operations and resummit it,
[22:31] depending on what happens to Tophas, or they could, you know, it just depends on what
[22:36] the RMS does, and then with the company decides to do to react to that.
[22:40] So I think we're all waiting to see what happens.
[22:43] And that communication between us and the county certainly will be critical as we learn
[22:48] and you guys learned what's going to happen with that.
[22:50] Okay, thanks.
[22:52] And then you may have said this, I might have just missed it.
[22:54] But the black snake pit in disappointment,
[22:59] is that the pit in San Miguel County that Dolores County
[23:02] is currently operating?
[23:06] That's the disappointment if black snake is a different pit?
[23:10] Okay, so that's in Dolores County, black snake.
[23:14] Yeah, I believe it is.
[23:15] Yes.
[23:16] Okay.
[23:17] Thanks.
[23:19] And then this is kind of a general question and maybe Lisa could address this, too.
[23:26] But I've just been curious lately, kind of, what the facts is, like we face in her management
[23:32] area.
[23:33] Whether it was made in her management area and a wild horse range designation, I have googled
[23:42] it a couple of times and there's not much information out there.
[23:44] So I'm wondering if you guys have that knowledge or not to get ahead of ourselves, I'm just
[23:56] curious about different kinds of dissimilation.
[24:00] Well, let me try, unless Lisa knows the answer, I'll give it a go, Hillary, and if I'm wrong,
[24:06] I will do a little bit, I'm only about it, but I think I know.
[24:10] A course area is designated through congressional means, and an HMA is offered management area
[24:17] not designated.
[24:18] They have basically the same implications as far as I know, but I will do a little bit
[24:23] of homework on that for you in that I hope heard area.
[24:28] I think there's one in Colorado which is a little book close.
[24:31] I think they're considered a heard area, whereas the rest of our heard management areas have
[24:36] not been recognized as a heard area.
[24:38] But I don't believe honestly that there's a difference in how we manage them.
[24:45] I think it was just how it was through call for us at the time.
[24:48] But I think we'll double check because we can all learn together on that.
[24:52] I'm happy to follow up on that one.
[24:55] Great.
[24:55] Lisa, did you want to add anything to that?
[24:58] Oh no, Connie, just a deferred to you and her-
[25:06] Any other questions? I want to take up all the time I will stop sharing and turn this over to Zayn for the end of our conference. I just did a more more question about the DOE drum program. The staff slip rock that you referred to. Is that covered, heard under all of the proposal that the DOE presented to us for
[25:31] in Northland Park or is obviously a few projects that have come back to us, or that we should contact them about.
[25:40] I am not positive on the answer for that commissioner, so I would suggest that you just talk to them about it as well, and I will ask my geologist if that is different.
[25:54] Okay, maybe just an internal note to our staff, to Lauren, the DOE on the scope of that project
[26:04] and then San Diego County, if we could get the same sort of meeting with DOE that we have
[26:11] previously for the other two projects.
[26:14] Yeah, and I think, Hillary, they're just in Survey Mode this year, but I made you wrong on that,
[26:19] So they may be happy yet to reach out to you because they're a little bit earlier in the stages
[26:26] But I think if I find out anything I will let you know as well
[26:30] I think that's it for me
[26:32] Thank you very much. Any other questions for Connie commission wearing?
[26:36] No, all clear. Thank you.
[26:38] Okay, we'll switch over then to Suzanne. Is that?
[26:44] Yeah, we can hear you.
[26:46] Okay, can you hear me okay?
[26:48] Yes.
[26:48] Great. Okay. Yeah, I don't have a whole lot to report out to you today. However, please
[26:56] to be invites to the meeting. Yeah, this kind of mention is I'm sure I'm planning on attending meetings together more regularly
[27:04] forward. At least on my part more regularly. So just a brief introduction. I came to the
[27:11] on the Poverty Field Office as the new field manager
[27:14] starting last May.
[27:16] So I think we're in the library year now.
[27:18] Before that, I was in the yellow and the right range
[27:21] with the Rocky Mountain District.
[27:23] And before that, I was with the National Park Service
[27:26] for about 10 years or so.
[27:28] So I have a couple of items to mention today
[27:31] and then I appreciate any questions
[27:33] that you might have for me.
[27:35] First is that the on the Poverty Field Office
[27:38] is entering into stage one.
[27:40] five restrictions, as a C-121 this morning, we had to advance to stage one.
[27:46] So, conditions are a little better than 3-3 else, however, really getting into those extreme levels in terms of the numbers.
[27:54] We dry out there and it will be hot and potentially with some good light in the speaking.
[27:59] So, in stage one there, the second item I wanted to mention is on Honeyhead,
[28:06] had referred to the defense, the DOE's defense that are related.
[28:11] You're in the mitigation program, the journal program, and we do have some sites as well,
[28:16] in the Compaglia field office that we're working with DOE on, and Connie and I are collaborating
[28:21] to seek some additional consistent archeological services to be able to move forward.
[28:30] Those project areas a little more quickly than we've been able to in the past.
[28:35] of the Department of Field Office is a little bit ahead in terms of having stories completed
[28:41] that were able to start to do some closures on, so we're collaborating with DOE and also
[28:48] with the other BLM field offices on those efforts.
[28:52] And I believe, actually, that's about all I have for San Miguel County, we just have a
[28:57] little portion of you in within the boundaries of the Department of Field Office.
[29:03] So do any of you have any questions for me?
[29:08] Commissioner Waring?
[29:09] Nope.
[29:09] Commissioner Cooper?
[29:10] Yes, thanks.
[29:13] Nice to see you, Suzanne.
[29:15] Thanks for being here.
[29:16] Yeah.
[29:17] There are any of the DOE sites in San Miguel County.
[29:24] I'm not aware of any DOE sites on the U.S.O.
[29:31] It's a really good hushy Hillary, because I'm not aware of either, so I did feel like
[29:38] probably mentioned we're working with Race Real, so I think what I will do is confirm that with our
[29:46] geologist, and I can send a note back to Harmon or Star, whoever's in this program,
[29:54] and just confirm that we don't, because that is my understanding as well, but I don't, I don't, I don't know.
[30:11] Any other questions?
[30:19] Seeing none, we thank you all for coming. I think it'll be great to have you reporting together so that we're having all fresh. And yes, it's like you're all busy as.
[30:31] So, as we are, too, but I'd really appreciate you being on and we'll look forward to the next update.
[30:38] Thank you, Councillors.
[30:41] Okay.
[30:43] With that, we'll move on to Planning Matters, number 8a.
[30:48] This is a public hearing consideration of the approval of the San Miguel County Affordable
[30:52] Housing Feet methodology report and corresponding land use code amendments as presented.
[31:04] Thank you commissioners and I'll just remind folks with a public hearing we usually hear from staff we ask questions as commissioners and then we open it up for public for questions for the public hearing.
[31:15] Okay commissioners today's presentation is a culmination of a year long process with county staff the board of county commissioners and the planning commission and with the town to tell you right as well.
[31:28] and it's to update our affordable housing impact fees.
[31:35] Background providing housing for the local community is a critical need.
[31:41] Workforce housing is important for retaining essential workers, emergency service workers
[31:47] and those who support the local economy.
[31:53] COVID has really exacerbated the situation. In 2018, at large amount of units was identified
[32:02] with more needed in the future by 2026 to house our local workforce. COVID has, I think,
[32:10] accelerated that process and highlighted the need all more for affordable housing in this area.
[32:17] In 2007, the BOCC adopted residential impact fees prior they had required certain thresholds
[32:26] the construction of housing units for houses about a certain size threshold.
[32:34] These fees were based upon the study provided by the consultant at that time, RPI, and those
[32:42] fees were impacted and initiated in 2007 and have been in effect since at the start of
[32:52] the process we identified that it would take significant analysis to update that model
[32:59] and as a result we have been stuck at the 2015 rate cap since that time for the last seven
[33:09] years and so staff has evaluated beginning in 2021 the Nexus Lincoln studies which are critical
[33:20] for the right or the power for the county to impose impact fees and we've also looked at different
[33:29] methods. We have held numerous work sessions with the county planning commission and received their
[33:36] feedback and also with the VOCC, most recently in March of this year and based on that direction
[33:46] we have prepared a new fee calculation method and also proposed potential mitigation in
[33:56] the form of deed restricted units if the Board of Commissioners wish to go in that direction.
[34:04] The fee calculation model that we are presenting is based on the market affordability gap approach.
[34:12] To establish impact fees for one and two unit residences, which are single-family residences and duplexes,
[34:20] the gap approach is based on the difference between the average market priced housing in the Telluride region
[34:27] and a price that would be affordable for a household earning 100% of the area median income.
[34:34] Unlike the previous approach, the gap approach uses publicly available LS data or assessor
[34:43] data.
[34:44] It's easily explainable and has been adopted by other local governments, including the
[34:50] town of Telluride, and mountain villages in process of also adopting it.
[34:54] it potentially could provide sufficient revenue for capital housing projects.
[35:00] And it has already whispered a legal challenge to it, the county of Gunnison. Basically, in a nutshell,
[35:10] the method calculates the gap and the development fee then, between the free market and affordable
[35:17] housing, affordable community housing, and based upon this analysis, the 2021 market gap fee
[35:27] is approximately $527 per square foot which is basically the difference between what a market price
[35:35] house would cost and the difference between what would be affordable for a community affordable
[35:42] housing unit. This model is illustrated on this slide. The basically the three components are
[35:52] First identify a targeted income segment of the local
[35:59] economy that we are going to target. We're all familiar with what area meeting
[36:04] median income is. For simplicity use we are using the 100% of the household
[36:11] income and in 2020 it was 81,500.
[36:19] Then I hope we're also familiar with how to
[36:21] established in affordable housing price it's based upon 30% of that area
[36:28] median income and then going through a few other calculations we come up with
[36:34] the maximum affordable price that that household could afford and in this case
[36:39] that would be 319 thousand six hundred and twenty-dollar house the also we
[36:46] established what are affordable unit sizes for those units and based upon the
[36:53] teleride housing, we've got the name of it but where they established unit
[37:00] sizes we came up with a 1075 square foot units which is reasonable for a
[37:07] four-person household of that size. The main determining variable in here is the
[37:13] market price and we utilize sales in the Telluride region. The sales types were of units in
[37:26] multi-family buildings and we had multitude of sales to look at. You know well over 100 in some
[37:33] years over 230 sales per year and they look at which is great to establish an average sales price
[37:43] per square foot in each year. So for instance for this model we if you look at the yellow line
[37:50] on the graph we utilize the sales in 2020 which were $899 per square foot,
[37:59] 2019, 772 and in 2018, $801 per square foot. If we took the those are the average
[38:12] the average sale in that year, divided by their square footage, and then we simply took
[38:19] an average of that, which is $824 per square foot in that area.
[38:26] And the reason we use sales and multi-family buildings is the most similar to the type
[38:33] of units that would be considered affordable and most closely are proximate to those types
[38:40] units. We didn't use single-family residence sales because those usually include other amenities
[38:47] or excess land which affordable units would not have. So once we had that $824 we simply deducted
[39:00] the dollars per square foot for the affordable price unit and that yields $527 per square foot
[39:09] and that's the gap and will also be used as the fee so to speak for construction proposed
[39:17] in the following year.
[39:22] This next slide shows how we calculate the impact fee.
[39:28] The first step is we need to determine how many construction jobs which are basically included
[39:37] in the construction of the unit and in the ongoing maintenance for that property.
[39:44] In this instance, we were able to skill use the labor generation rates that were utilized
[39:52] in 2005, it still takes the same amount of people to build the house, and it still takes
[39:57] It's the same amount of persons to...
[40:01] So we calculate the employees generated, which is taken the residential floor area proposed within the formula for the construction workers, the maintenance workers, and so that property would regenerate approximately 0.7 employees. Then we, the land use code provides the minimum amount of space required per employee.
[40:29] which currently it's 350 times the current mitigation rate which is 37% yields the
[40:38] employee housing square footage to be provided in this instance it would be 90 square feet and then
[40:44] finally we take that 527 dollars per square foot multiplied by the employee housing square foot to
[40:51] be provided and that yields the impact fee in this example of 47 approximately 48,000 dollars
[40:59] Once
[41:05] we have that, we have the market gap fee of $527, and we have a structure that
[41:15] we can compete with the impact fees.
[41:19] This is a table that shows what those fees would be approximately for properties from
[41:27] zero-feet up to 12,000 square feet, staff also proposes that the square footage be increased
[41:35] from 350 to 400, which would match the town that tell you right.
[41:40] The max, one of the big proposals is to increase the mitigation fee or mitigation percentage
[41:47] from 37%, which we currently have from a graduated rate level from 30% to 90%.
[41:57] This table that is shown shows the different at the different square footages from 0 to
[42:04] 1800, those properties would still be exempt from paying any impact fees.
[42:11] From 1801 to 2500, it would be a 30% from 2500 to 4,042%, I'm sorry, up to 3,000, and then
[42:26] from 3,000 to 4,000, 66% and then from 4,000 and 1 and above, it would be at the maximum 90% mitigation rate.
[42:38] And this table also shows that if the board of county commissioners were to required units at certain thresholds,
[42:50] by that different sizes at 400 and above which is in this instance would be above any proposal
[43:01] above 5,876 square feet a unit would conceivably be required. If the board decided to only collect
[43:11] impact fees in the blue column or the blue highlighted it shows what those
[43:17] impact fees would be. So you have a quick question. So is this an annual
[43:28] recalculation based on AMI and the three-year running average? Yes, it'll change
[43:33] year-to-year. It will change year-to-year if the board directs or you know in the
[43:39] approval as presented yes great yeah so it could go up or down just dependence on
[43:45] our economy and what's happening great thank you and that's another one of
[43:49] the reasons it's using a three-year average helps move out any variability
[43:54] between different years because just in this three or a period we could see
[43:59] variability
[44:02] this is a scenario that we have a potentially if someone were to
[44:08] bill that 12,000 square foot house and propose building a in a stone district which allows
[44:15] a maximum square footage of 800 square foot ADU. This is a calculation that would occur
[44:24] and just really quickly go through this. The first calculation is to determine the number
[44:30] of employees generated, which in this case is nearly five.
[44:35] The employee housing square footage that could generate would be 1,679, which is larger
[44:44] than is allowed in many zone districts.
[44:48] The impact fee for the gross impact fee is approximately $885,000.
[44:56] if the commissioners
[45:00] If you decide that the credit could be given if a applicant were to either be required to provide a unit or if they aren't required, if they voluntarily would provide a unit, indeed restricted with a occupancy covenant, that a credit would be given. So in this case, they would provide a unit. And also an impact fee of $463,000.
[45:29] approximately. I have one other question there. 12,000 square feet and above requires
[45:38] a special use permit. That's correct. This is your example, so it's good.
[45:44] Yes, please don't rain on my parade. I would love to rain on your parade if it
[45:49] actually brought rain. Yeah, good point. We don't get to do that.
[45:52] Question I could work, go ahead, sorry.
[45:57] The credit is based on the construction of a 400 square foot unit.
[46:04] In this case, it would be an 800 square foot unit.
[46:09] Okay.
[46:13] All right, so actually, let me just re-answer questions.
[46:15] The credit is based on the square footage of the unit construction.
[46:20] That's correct.
[46:22] Okay, carry on.
[46:24] This is a comparison table between what is existing and what is proposed.
[46:31] Currently the square footage per employee is 350 and the mitigation rate is 37.
[46:39] And impact fees at a maximum size of 12,000 or approximately 58,000 with what is proposed
[46:49] Just with a 400 square foot per employer requirement and 90% impact mitigation, or I should
[46:56] say from a 30 to 90% impact mitigation rate.
[47:01] And for this year, $527 gap fee, the impact fees could, you know, go up to $885,000 approximately.
[47:13] So it is a significant proposal.
[47:20] And I just want to note, you'll see that we're dropping for the bottom end of the scale from 37% mitigation percentage to 30%.
[47:31] But there's still a significant net increase in fees.
[47:36] So yeah. Okay.
[47:41] So I'd like to present three options for adoption by board for the board of county commissioners.
[47:50] And this is just also these impact fees and mitigation requirements only occur in the tell you right are one school district
[47:59] because that's what the Nexus studies have shown this is where the employers are generated in the construct.
[48:06] in this area in which you know really puts pressure on the local housing market.
[48:13] So option one is to permit or require the payment and impact fees only similar to what
[48:23] we are doing currently in lieu of providing employee housing units.
[48:27] Option 2 is the payment of impact fees with an option of allowing applicants to provide
[48:38] employee housing units voluntarily for a credit to be applied to the payment of an impact
[48:43] fee.
[48:45] Option 3 is also payment of impact fees and including an obligation to provide employee housing units
[48:56] It's if required and this is mitigation after 400 square feet or greater depending on
[49:04] the number of employees generated with a credit applied towards the payment of the impact
[49:10] fee.
[49:13] Each option would require the adoption of the San Miguel County Affordable Housing
[49:18] the methodology report and land use code amendments to implement the report and also the option
[49:28] that is chosen. So option one, which is payment of impact fees only, what we're going to get
[49:36] with this is we're more accurately reflect the value of affordable housing mitigation as
[49:42] composed compared to the current method.
[49:46] The implementation of this option is the least complex, we're already doing it, and also
[49:52] required the least amount of changes to the land use code.
[49:56] It does not include a requirement to construct deed-result-result-result-result-result-result.
[50:00] Districted employee housing units on sites. And as a notation, secondary dwelling units are
[50:09] allowed without deed restriction in some zones in some areas of the district where these
[50:17] are required. Option 2, which is the payment of impact fees with the voluntary option to
[50:24] provide employee housing for a credit towards the impact fee. This provision would prevent
[50:30] the voluntary construction of employee housing units on site in lieu or in lieu of full or
[50:38] partial payment of the impact fee. And this only would apply in zone districts and areas
[50:43] where second units are allowed. For instance, the Iderado subdivision is in the mobile house
[50:52] in the mobile home zone district which was the zone district which was in place when it was approved.
[51:00] Only primary residence is permitted and at this point they are allowed to have accessory dwelling units or their caretaker unit or any secondary unit.
[51:12] It's also true in the rangeland grazing zone district in the two zone districts that were approved at Mill Creek, the Deep Creek Mesa
[51:21] and which is the that is the low density residential zone district and that's
[51:28] the ones I can come up with that and then the Samagil River Canyon area that's
[51:34] right of the of the at the zone district and those are that's a portion of the
[51:39] master plan area which as you know they have issues with providing septic and
[51:46] each field. So those areas you just listed are areas where you're not allowed to do a secondary
[51:53] unit. Right. Correct. Okay. If a unit were built it would be subject to the
[52:02] deed restriction and which is in place already and it would also include
[52:08] a the deed restriction covenant which imposes occupancy requirements. It's very similar to
[52:15] the requirement or I'm sorry the covenant that is used say for instance in
[52:22] San Bernardo were on a few of those properties the residents are allowed to
[52:27] have and accessory dwelling units that they rent out this just make sure that
[52:32] they stay occupied option three which includes the aim of the impact fees and an
[52:40] obligation to provide employee housing if required by the amount of
[52:45] improvement with a credit. This would only apply in zone districts where second
[52:51] units are allowed. Certain units are certain properties in which encompasses in
[52:59] the last three years all the properties that would have been required to provide
[53:04] a unit. They were all built in zone districts or in subdivisions or areas that
[53:12] that do not allow secondary units, so we would not have had a net gain of any units with
[53:19] that requirement.
[53:23] The planning commission also, if this option were approved, to also allow the construction
[53:33] of accessory dwelling units or caretaker units without deed restriction, when the total
[53:39] floor area of the principal dwelling unit plus the ADU or caretaker unit is less than
[53:45] 4,000 feet so this only applies if if both of those units were less than 4,000
[53:52] square feet. Once they go above that then that caretaker unit would be required
[53:59] to be de-restricted and also the unit is less than 50% of the floor area of the
[54:05] principal dwelling and that is just to you know make sure that the scope of these two buildings
[54:11] that one is subservient to the other. A main residence and an actual caretaker or IDU.
[54:18] If an employee housing unit is required and the mitigation requirement size exceeds the
[54:25] immediate maximum unit size allowed so for instance units that are in say for instance the ski
[54:33] ranches or out of the soro or other places where the maximum unit allowed is an 800 square foot
[54:41] ADU. They would build a unit up to that maximum unit size and then receive a credit for the remain
[54:51] I'm sorry, they would pay the impact fee for the remainder of the square foot that they are
[54:58] Yeah.
[55:01] I have to say implementation, administration and enforcement of this option is complex. We would have units that were built from 1994 through 2007 that were required units. Then we would have from 2007 to 2022, where many free market ADUs were constructed. And then we would have ADUs and caretook units built
[55:31] from 2022 on that would have to be accounted for and dealt with separately in each instance.
[55:39] Commissioner Wearing. John, would option number two be less complex through a minister?
[55:44] Yes. Why is that? That is because if somebody part of the not only implementing and
[55:57] and it's straighting it also requires enforcement.
[56:00] If someone is voluntarily providing a unit,
[56:04] they are most more likely going to be motivated
[56:10] to follow the conditions that are required
[56:14] by the regional housing authority
[56:16] in the deed restriction and covenant.
[56:19] It's not a guarantee, but you would think
[56:22] if they're imposing this upon themselves,
[56:24] they are allowing a tenant to be on their property.
[56:28] It was their choice to allow it.
[56:30] It wasn't a mandated issue by the county.
[56:35] That is the thought behind it.
[56:36] And we just had, this was brought up within the planning commission,
[56:43] that what if somebody didn't want to pay the impact fee?
[56:48] They wanted to have an option.
[56:49] They think that, or they would like to be able to provide a unit on the property.
[56:53] this at least gives them the option to do it and it might be the better, a more realistic way to actually get some units onto a property.
[57:10] And I'd also like to add on option three, there's a somewhat unresolved problem in there that if somebody comes in under the threshold to provide a unit and then later on they do an addition,
[57:25] and do they just pay the fee or have,
[57:28] and successfully circumvent the ADU requirement,
[57:32] or do they suddenly have to also build an ADU?
[57:35] So it's, and then the other thing
[57:38] we had a significant discussion at the Planning Commission
[57:41] was people, once upon a time people were happy
[57:46] to have somebody maintaining their property
[57:48] or able to watch their property living on site.
[57:51] With all the services and technology that we've had since,
[57:55] they don't want that as much anymore, they, you know, most people want to, they
[57:59] further privacy instead. So there's, you know, we expect that there would be
[58:04] pushback there as well. Well, and I just think the obligatory construction
[58:11] hasn't really worked all that well for us in the past.
[58:17] I just, one, I just want
[58:18] to say thank you for an incredible amount of work that has obviously gone into
[58:22] this and presenting us with three options is great.
[58:26] I really like the fact that we have these two.
[58:28] Talk about.
[58:29] I will try to get through the remainder of this quickly.
[58:33] Some of it's the required stuff.
[58:37] The proposed land use amendment to the land use code
[58:41] would affect the affordable housing fees and mitigation
[58:45] is contained in sections 5-13, which is the ADU
[58:51] affordable housing section and associated sections which contain the standards for different
[58:57] zone districts such as low-density, high-density, medium-density, forestry, and many others.
[59:06] The difference that we are proposing is that clinics e to the land use code would contain
[59:11] the procedures necessary for staff to update the employee housing mitigation fee on an annual
[59:16] basis B.O.C.C. action would not be needed to adjust the fee unless and until
[59:22] the methodology were changed. The draft amendment contained in your meeting
[59:27] packet is consistent with the requirements proposed in option three. We're not
[59:32] recommending that, but that is what we had proposed to the planning commission
[59:38] and that is we have not made any adjustments to it. This meeting the meeting
[59:45] agenda for the planning commission meeting was posted in the paper on I'm sorry and they
[59:53] should say the public hearing notice was posted yes published this when required it was when
[1:00:00] The requirement was actually published on May 25th in the paper and I have a different date here. We both missed it. And the draft land use amendment has been available since April 20th on the line. We did receive one comment. This week, Morgan Smith, the county resident, wrote in support of allowing, de-districted housing caretaker units in the F zone subject to review. It also included comments about decreasing or increasing the amount that a property
[1:00:29] or proposions could be spaced.
[1:00:32] But that is not part of our deliberations today.
[1:00:37] This was referred to the listed agencies.
[1:00:44] We did receive comments back from the county assistant manager
[1:00:47] and the town of Tellurag.
[1:00:49] Town was just very minor clarifications,
[1:00:53] fractions, which were made,
[1:00:54] and the county manager was consulted
[1:00:56] while this draft was prepared and this comments have been incorporated into the draft as presented.
[1:01:03] The review standards for land use code amendments are listed here.
[1:01:08] And it allows that land use code amendments may be initiated by the county or persons or residents.
[1:01:15] And this amendment was requested by the BOCC.
[1:01:18] Land use code amendments shall be drafted in a form consistent with the organizational format and style of the code.
[1:01:24] and the proposed amendment has been drafted in the format and style of the code,
[1:01:28] and the employee housing mitigation fee method and calculation tables
[1:01:32] will be in appendix to the code to allow for annual fee updates
[1:01:37] without the need to go through a land use code amendment each and every time.
[1:01:42] And then also, purposes of the land use code implement is to implement policies
[1:01:48] and to him regarding land use and development, housing growth and related issues, and the
[1:01:55] its amendment ensures that residential development that is causing the impact provide meaningful
[1:02:01] fees and mitigation that contribute to alleviating that foreign housing shortage in the region.
[1:02:08] Fees collected are used to implement housing programs consistent with county land use policies
[1:02:15] and standards and county master plan goals.
[1:02:19] The county planning commission, as Kay and I kind of
[1:02:24] interweaving, they did approve unanimously after much
[1:02:29] discussion and consternation approval of the new
[1:02:32] impact fees to require the provision of affordable housing
[1:02:36] units as presented in the report and to also allow up to a
[1:02:42] certain size threshold accessory dwelling units or
[1:02:45] caretaker units without the restriction.
[1:02:51] They have listed or discussed concerns during
[1:02:56] their meeting that requiring units is an infringement on property owners and enjoyment
[1:03:03] of the property if a unit is required on site.
[1:03:08] Currently, they would be more excited to
[1:03:12] require units if there were options to build off-site if there were unit or not units but places where
[1:03:24] they could build a unit off-site but nothing existed this time. Multiple zone districts, subdivisions,
[1:03:32] second residences, prohibit, secondary units, and that was concern of theirs. And also as we
[1:03:41] We discussed earlier within 2020 to 2022, a three-year period new construction or additions
[1:03:51] within San Miguel County, there were 44 projects and not one of them would have provided
[1:03:57] a obligatory unit because we're not allowed in those zone districts or areas where those
[1:04:04] new construction occurred.
[1:04:07] And they were concerned that new, all new, the 80s and caretakers are
[1:04:14] de-restricted rather than as they are currently allowed to be built on the
[1:04:19] property now. They're concerned about infringement on the property rights of
[1:04:23] Elleners. And they also brought up a good point when are the effect, when is the
[1:04:28] effective data of these fees proposed? And in our recommendation, we're suggesting
[1:04:35] July 15th and once we get through our recommendation, we are also going to ask
[1:04:40] to come back at a future meeting with a resolution after you have decided which
[1:04:47] option you wish to put forth and so staff recommends adoption of the report
[1:04:54] and associated land use code amendments consistent with option two.
[1:05:00] With an effective date of July 15th for the new fees, we're in property owners who wish to build. Indeed, restrict an 80-year caretaker unit could do so in exchange for a credit towards the mitigation fee. And this contains the suggested or sample motion for option two. And we also contained it one, if you choose to make that obligatory for option three.
[1:05:27] and could answer any questions.
[1:05:31] Great.
[1:05:31] I see Commissioner Cooper has her hand up.
[1:05:34] Go ahead.
[1:05:36] Thanks.
[1:05:37] Just quickly, John, back to the CPC recommendations,
[1:05:42] and they have misunderstood the way you read that.
[1:05:47] The requirement that they were concerned about
[1:05:52] the requirement that eight of these
[1:05:53] and 30 audience are at the district or they were concerned
[1:05:58] They were concerned that they brought up a several examples of what about a property owner who does not wish to build a
[1:06:11] 4,000 square foot house or in this case a 6,000 square foot house that would require a deed restriction.
[1:06:19] they posited what if we built a 2,000 square foot house and a 1,000 square foot
[1:06:26] ADU but we don't want the ADU to be de-restricted and so they carved out an
[1:06:33] exception for properties that would allow up to 4,000 square feet for each
[1:06:43] improvement to that. They've created a scenario where you could still have an undead restricted
[1:06:52] or free market, ADU, with your house, basically a guest house.
[1:06:59] And if you choose option two, that kind of negates that. And the Planning Commission discussion
[1:07:10] was quite robust. And they brought up a really good point, Hillary, that I, prior to that
[1:07:18] meeting, had not properly researched the zone districts and areas within the Telluride
[1:07:26] R1 school district that do not allow secondary units. And I was amazed. It really surprised
[1:07:33] me, because I thought that we would have gained, you know, at least three units during this
[1:07:39] time period because there were houses that would have been required it and all of them were within
[1:07:45] Iterado or in the Rangeline grazing zone district which they couldn't build the units even if they
[1:07:53] wanted to and that with you know the problems that we foresee in enforcing and demonstrating and
[1:08:02] keeping up with all the different iterations that we've had for
[1:08:08] deed-restricted units. It just is super complex and I don't think would yield the
[1:08:16] result that I think you were especially looking for, you know, adding units.
[1:08:22] And option two I think gives at least an option to people who wouldn't be
[1:08:27] required, but may opt to build them to save money on their fees.
[1:08:33] Commissioner Waring.
[1:08:33] It was a planning commission.
[1:08:35] Sorry.
[1:08:36] Could probably continue.
[1:08:37] Yeah.
[1:08:37] Go ahead.
[1:08:39] Was the planning commission amenable to the developer or homeowner building these ADUs as
[1:08:54] is a credit for a court of law, isn't it?
[1:08:59] What do you think?
[1:09:00] Are they just talking about they want to give the homeowner
[1:09:04] permission to fill the guest house,
[1:09:06] but it would not be a credit for a court of law.
[1:09:10] I think it's two separate questions.
[1:09:13] The first one, if I understand it, would be,
[1:09:18] they would like people to still have the option
[1:09:21] to be able to build secondary units without a deed restriction on the
[1:09:26] property. As a mitigation? No. No, not as a mitigation. No, it's and so they
[1:09:36] would be paying fees. They would be paying fees on both structures. Yeah, above
[1:09:42] certain sizes. Right. If they get the credit, it has to be deed restricted. Right.
[1:09:47] Okay. Okay. Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page.
[1:09:50] Okay. You bet.
[1:09:51] I don't know a lot of questions, but if somebody would want to...
[1:09:55] Let's see.
[1:09:56] And I guess just process wise, so you presented...
[1:10:00] Your report, by the way, is excellent in the memo. Thank you very much. You obviously spent a lot of time in training at that report, and it's an excellent report.
[1:10:22] Let's go to if she can get your questions. Okay. Go ahead with your questions.
[1:10:38] I will get into some of the other questions I have.
[1:10:47] One, and this is sort of just a comment that we, you stated a few times, and in the
[1:10:57] I don't forget in the memo that this would generate a sufficient mitigation for affordable housing.
[1:11:06] And I just want us to be really careful in the way we state that.
[1:11:10] While this would certainly generate more than we are doing now, it would not still not generate a sufficient amount.
[1:11:17] One of your calculations indicated that this could have generated $2-3 million dollars over the past couple years.
[1:11:23] That's still not an adequate amount for us to, you know, address the thousand units or more that we are behind right now in generating.
[1:11:36] So, I think we just need to be careful in our language that...
[1:11:40] And I agree.
[1:12:02] I think he's trying to explain the rationale.
[1:12:07] This is a way of trying to mitigate the new construction.
[1:12:10] and we're not allowed to make up mitigation.
[1:12:15] We can only go to mitigate the actual projects
[1:12:19] that are being proposed.
[1:12:20] Everything that's happened in the past week,
[1:12:23] with this method, we cannot make that up
[1:12:26] and by statute, it's not allowed.
[1:12:29] Yes.
[1:12:30] And what we're doing here is we are making up the gap.
[1:12:35] So we still, as public entities,
[1:12:38] you saw to come up with the funds needed to build the housing, this just supplemented
[1:12:45] the gap.
[1:12:46] It's not sufficient in other words to cover the whole price.
[1:12:49] So I'm just reminding us that we still need to do more, and let's not use this before
[1:12:55] to say, this will be sufficient to address, you know, maybe in the future.
[1:13:00] I don't believe that was the intention.
[1:13:07] Okay.
[1:13:13] the
[1:13:17] address that I certainly wouldn't do the planning mission that all of these units
[1:13:22] that would be generated, if we go with that, about any units that are generated whether
[1:13:28] they're voluntary or regulated should be up to our de-districtions and then I do have
[1:13:37] some questions about the specific de-distriction that I'm not sure should be addressed through
[1:13:43] this conversation, but like for example, you know, if the owner was was building on site and
[1:13:49] wanted to bring a caretaker that maybe came in from their other properties and other counties, etc.
[1:13:54] And that person didn't have a history of residency in this area, you know, how would be accommodate
[1:14:00] that? And maybe that's for a future leader restriction discussion, but that's something that we should
[1:14:07] consider. In other words, we're trying to house people who currently live and work in
[1:14:13] the region, or be okay with housing new residents who will be coming in, who may fall
[1:14:18] under the rest of our jurisdiction categories, just to-
[1:14:22] We need to be qualified employees. So, we could address that in a future meeting and
[1:14:27] or through an exception process.
[1:14:31] Okay. I'm not a big fan of leaving things up to exception processes, because those are getting
[1:14:37] We can address it in a future meeting just trying to address what we have right in front
[1:14:43] of us.
[1:14:44] But I think that's a good point.
[1:14:46] Yeah.
[1:14:47] If we adopt a requirement for providing the unit, then we could work on, you know, with
[1:14:56] of Lewis on developing a
[1:15:00] Deed restriction, covenant that would be applicable and address that. And then another question, I know that the restriction is the amount of rent that could be charged. Are we going to restrict that, which came now by, you know, with the
[1:15:30] another question for that future discussion.
[1:15:35] And then, I think there's sort of published
[1:15:38] in that, I'm not sure if it's a low resolution,
[1:15:43] in our packets of where the zone districts
[1:15:47] that would allow this type of units,
[1:15:52] maybe that's a work session for the future as well.
[1:15:58] And again, it was a little hard for me to review because it's really low.
[1:16:03] I couldn't zoom in to the map in my packet.
[1:16:07] So maybe that will be something for us to consider.
[1:16:10] And the feature is to really take a look at those zones and adjust those zones if we think that that's appropriate.
[1:16:24] Then the generation through the requirements, so I'm under option number 3, the requirement
[1:16:34] I believe the way the town does this is if the development gerates one employee or more
[1:16:44] then that triggers the requirement of passing to be built on site or to be the
[1:16:55] town also allows a pre-martial unit to be purchased and de-districted, which
[1:17:04] is something that I would be interested in looking at as opposed to you know
[1:17:10] say you didn't. So it's just kind of a question there. I don't know if you guys want to address that now or
[1:17:21] if I understand correctly they the county used to allow that or the town did and most of those
[1:17:30] HOAs and and they don't allow those to be purchased and deed restricted anymore so I don't think there's
[1:17:38] a huge opportunity to do that.
[1:17:43] Yeah, that's the second bullet on the concerns list on this slide, that the planning commission
[1:17:49] talked about.
[1:17:50] There's just a lack of options to deed restrict units offsite that are within the R1 school
[1:17:55] district.
[1:17:56] So well that they're I mean they're I think I read this as there's no lack of
[1:18:06] options to build and that was your correct but there's also a lack of areas
[1:18:13] that to do the purchase as well and they even talked about what if he allowed
[1:18:18] to build in Norwood but then we're that would be allowing the the impacts to be
[1:18:25] exported and it it's not providing the employees where the employees housing where
[1:18:31] they're generated just by the North Area. I mean I guess I would just kind of throw that out to the
[1:18:41] to my fellow commissioners if that's something that you guys would be interested in
[1:18:45] exploring the you know allowing them to buy down a free market unit within the
[1:18:57] anything would preclude that, as we've got it drafted, we just don't see a high
[1:19:06] probability.
[1:19:10] Any other questions?
[1:19:22] So multi-unit residential, are you
[1:19:26] constantly that that would be considered when we consider the commercial,
[1:19:33] I'm updating the commercial date or commercial mitigation rates or why did you not include multi-intermittial in this case?
[1:19:47] Yeah, I just wanted to get something accomplished or something done and bring something forward. That is in the next phase.
[1:19:57] Yeah, right now the mitigation
[1:20:00] Motion fee does apply to single family and two family, and then multi-family requires the actual provision of units.
[1:20:10] So, yeah, it's a different section of the code. We do have in here clarification, though, because there's some confusion in the current code about how multi-family is dealt with, so there's some clean up there.
[1:20:25] We'll be back with part two.
[1:20:28] Okay.
[1:20:33] Well, when I remember when my earlier question was just on process, so there are
[1:20:38] great specific updates to the land use code that were mentioned in our packets. And I think
[1:20:44] some of this will obviously
[1:20:51] the motion has been an impact though. So I wonder if you plan
[1:20:55] to take the time to go through those specific updates in our land use code so that we can comment
[1:21:00] from that language or. We anticipate based on upon the you know the option. Chosen it will
[1:21:10] come back with a resolution which includes the land use code language and unfortunately I will
[1:21:19] not be there or I don't plan on being here for that meeting but. Okay as well as graciously
[1:21:26] allowed me to leave at that time.
[1:21:36] And then this is kind of to the effective date as well.
[1:21:42] Or I assume because this is what's published in your document
[1:21:45] that we're using in 2021.
[1:21:48] Hydrates and not 2022, which have been published.
[1:21:53] I had attempted to, I was unable to get the material or information I needed
[1:21:58] it in a timely way to update things and also bring it forward to the planning commission
[1:22:05] and to the board of county commissioners.
[1:22:08] Conceivably we could update for the next following year it might include two years of update.
[1:22:20] Because we are only up to 2020 in sales and the next time we would update it, we would
[1:22:26] include 2021 and 2022 when we would update in 2023 so it's just the time you've
[1:22:35] when date is available so yeah that was I guess kind of my question too so how it is
[1:22:41] for hard to publish the AMI updates in April of every year so do you plan on an annual update of this
[1:22:52] or is it going to be every two years, or?
[1:22:55] Well, we wanted to really work as hard as we could.
[1:22:58] This will be updated annually.
[1:23:03] We would just-
[1:23:05] Administratively, I think, really.
[1:23:06] I suppose that's the PSC every year.
[1:23:09] You're absolutely correct.
[1:23:11] It's very difficult to get that AMI information in a timely way,
[1:23:17] so we would just use the previous year.
[1:23:19] So for 2023, we would end up using 2022, because that would have been available since,
[1:23:28] you know, at least a couple of months already, whereas the 2023, you're right, doesn't
[1:23:34] come available to at least April, and we anticipated that the update would occur hopefully by April
[1:23:41] 30th of each year.
[1:23:42] Okay,
[1:23:46] yeah, so in that case, it would be really hard to use the, um, that you're a family
[1:23:51] reason. Um, and then just in terms of you brought this up earlier, the enforcement and
[1:23:58] administration of all of this, I think I'm still not clear at this because we don't really
[1:24:04] have an active, um, regional housing authority right now. Um, you know, what portion of this
[1:24:13] this is going to be administered by the regional housing authority versus the planning department
[1:24:18] and I think, you know, in most of not all other resort counties, this is very much managed
[1:24:25] by our regional housing authority.
[1:24:27] That is.
[1:24:28] That is.
[1:24:29] It's a great producer, et cetera, so I think that's just something for the commissioners
[1:24:32] to keep in mind is that while this may be really burdensome to have planning staff right
[1:24:37] now because we don't really have an active regional housing authority, once we do have an active
[1:24:42] regional housing authority? I think it's significant amount of this can be managed by that.
[1:24:52] I think we're well on our way to having a reactive regional housing authority so I think this will be hopefully a
[1:24:57] point. Yeah.
[1:25:01] Any other questions? Commissioner Waring? I, Hillary, caught one of my questions, which was I would like to pick up that discussion about potential zone districts that we could adjust that don't have an underlying subdivision preclusion of restricted units. With that, I support the concept of purchasing an existing unit, Hillary. But
[1:25:30] have heard pretty clearly that that opportunity is low percentage. If K feels like that option is not
[1:25:38] precluded in this language and doesn't need to be called out, then I'm fine to proceed and
[1:25:45] I lean towards option two. And I would just add, yeah, in our upcoming master plan processes to make
[1:25:51] sure that we review, and I know we will, the second unit preclusion or inclusion on any of those,
[1:25:58] I think some of those areas are actually right for potential increased density and close
[1:26:05] into town.
[1:26:06] So appreciate that.
[1:26:07] And I also lean to option two.
[1:26:10] In that master plan discussion that's coming towards us, is that the time that we would
[1:26:16] consider Morgan Smith's suggestion of changing the 300-square-foot?
[1:26:22] The three hundred. Yeah, that could actually be a that could actually be a land use code amendment
[1:26:28] Initiated any time, but we've got a few other things ahead. Okay, I'd like to keep that on the list. Yeah
[1:26:37] please
[1:26:40] Thank any further questions from commissioners
[1:26:44] glad commissioner Cooper
[1:26:47] We still have public comment to go through
[1:26:54] You're muted
[1:27:01] In that master plan discussion, just curious if HOA's can, you know, if we put this in place,
[1:27:10] could HOA or in the open up the areas where these units can be constructed, HOA's could
[1:27:21] not further restrict that, correct?
[1:27:24] Or could HOA language get even more restricted than county language in terms of limiting the
[1:27:30] options before we're housing the innovation on site.
[1:27:34] I'd want to research that.
[1:27:36] Yeah.
[1:27:37] In one instance, the only one I've really researched.
[1:27:40] Ianorado does in their declaration.
[1:27:42] Not, yeah, Ianorado does allow accessory dwelling units.
[1:27:46] Does or does not.
[1:27:48] It does.
[1:27:48] They do, but our zoning does, but the zoning precludes it.
[1:27:52] So there is an opportunity.
[1:27:54] That would be a good one.
[1:28:00] OK, there's no further questions right now
[1:28:01] from the commissioners.
[1:28:03] If we can not share your screen for just a minute so I can see if there's any public we'll
[1:28:10] open the public hearing and if a member of the public would like to speak please raise
[1:28:16] your hand and
[1:28:23] I am not seeing any.
[1:28:27] So with that we will close the public comment portion of the public hearing and Commissioner
[1:28:32] Cooper your hand is raised.
[1:28:38] So this is a little bit to my point earlier, this is excellent progress and I'm glad
[1:28:47] we're here and I'm very much thankful she's there for working on this despite all the
[1:28:53] interruptions we've heard in the meantime, but still in my mind, while this progress still
[1:29:02] is not sufficient to address our global housing, lack of affordable housing, and also it is,
[1:29:10] you know, honestly, just really targeted to the future. Need for affordable housing, so
[1:29:16] additionally, for affordable housing, and I still think you need to address additional ways to
[1:29:27] to bring funds in like some of the levy that's dedicated to affordable housing when you start across more evenly, you know, obviously a lot of development has happened in the meantime that has not been sufficiently paying into any kind of affordable housing innovation.
[1:29:43] So I think it's on us, commissioners, to continue to work on this and find more ways to more sufficiently more advocacy, community or our huge affordable housing.
[1:29:57] Thank you very much.
[1:30:00] Okay. We're ready for motion.
[1:30:05] John, could I ask you to pull up that suggested motion for option two, please?
[1:30:18] I move to approve the San Miguel County Affordable Housing
[1:30:40] of Land Use Code Section 5-1802, Land Use Code Amendments is consistent with Land Use Code
[1:30:47] Section 1-4, purposes of Land Use Code, and implements the Land Use Code policies for
[1:30:53] housing as contained in Section 2-29, and a direct staff to prepare a resolution with an
[1:30:59] effective date of July 15th for the new fees and for consideration and adoption of the
[1:31:04] July 6th meeting with direction to staff to revise the Land Use Code Amendment to allow
[1:31:09] fee credit if a secondary dwelling unit is built and voluntarily deed restricted and
[1:31:15] removing the requirement to deed restrict accessory dwelling units and caretaker units.
[1:31:24] We have a motion?
[1:31:25] I'll second and I for discussion I just don't really understand that last section.
[1:31:33] Last sentence?
[1:31:34] Why are we moving?
[1:31:36] I believe because then it is going to be paid for.
[1:31:40] Well, as drafted and presented to you today, it had the requirement to deed restricts.
[1:31:47] So, it's to amend what was, or to remove it from what was presented to you today.
[1:31:52] No, it's because you had often to read the code as it now exists, but to remove it from the draft.
[1:31:59] So, we're still deed restricting any voluntary correct.
[1:32:03] Correct.
[1:32:04] Okay.
[1:32:04] That's.
[1:32:06] Okay.
[1:32:07] Any further discussion?
[1:32:10] How do you vote?
[1:32:16] Again, thank you for a huge amount of work and a well-presented range of options.
[1:32:22] Very much appreciated.
[1:32:24] I really appreciate your guys' feedback.
[1:32:26] It was essential and very helpful.
[1:32:28] Great.
[1:32:28] Thank you.
[1:32:29] And John, very good job on this.
[1:32:32] That's what we're saying.
[1:32:34] This is big.
[1:32:37] While it may not be sufficient, it is a huge step forward.
[1:32:40] We're going to move into the continued public hearing from June 8th, consideration of approval
[1:32:48] of the land use code amendment to allow social and scenic uses in the F zone district.
[1:32:58] I just saw what I'm sharing with you here,
[1:33:05] trying to remember how to use Zoom and share.
[1:33:21] Okay, so this is the alleged kind of memo to Section 5-307 for a straighter cultural and open zone regarding social and scenic uses.
[1:33:31] As we discussed last week, this is to amend 5307D for one step plan commission review for social and scenic uses for attendance of 200 or fewer gas and then 5-307F, two step, especially use permit review, if it was more than 200 gas.
[1:33:48] 35 acre parcel size would be required and we didn't have any property conditions or we didn't
[1:33:57] have any specific to this use standards. The special use permit standards of the land use
[1:34:07] code section 5-1002 would be used in review of any application and that does include traffic,
[1:34:14] amplified music and noise, lighting, trash, sanitation hours of operation and such.
[1:34:19] So at the last meeting, you did continue this to allow time to consider concerns related
[1:34:24] to cumulative impacts of multiple uses in an area and separation of uses to prevent
[1:34:30] online conflict, or prevent conflicts on what I'm reading here.
[1:34:34] Options would be to add a new section 5-307M, which are specific review standards for social
[1:34:40] and scenic uses in the F-zone, but to do that I would highly recommend that you
[1:34:44] remand it to the Planning Commission for their review before doing that, because
[1:34:48] they've had no ability to review comment on that. And then the other option
[1:34:53] would be to proceed with as it's proposed today, but also consider a
[1:34:59] I'm ending.
[1:35:00] In the future, Land Use Conception 5-1002, the standards for all special uses and other uses requiring one step and two step review. And then clarifying Section 5-1002B impacts on the surrounding area. That would be a new separate land use code amendment. And here you have, in front of you, what 5-1002B says right now, impacts on surrounding area, compatible with the character of parcels.
[1:35:28] adjacent to the parcel shall be expressed in terms of appearance, scale and features, site design, landscaping, we deceive dispersal, et cetera, et cetera.
[1:35:36] And it talks about all the potential impacts.
[1:35:39] We could amend this or look at amending this to talk about cumulative impacts.
[1:35:47] And because there's more than just the social use, special use permits that might be there.
[1:35:57] Public comment, the newest thing here is that we did get another letter from Nicole Pater's
[1:36:03] A, an email yesterday that I did forward to all of you and basically encouraging the
[1:36:12] looking at the cumulative impacts but proceeding with the criteria we have right now.
[1:36:17] Planning commission action, we had a workshop last week as part of the regular meeting where
[1:36:24] So we discussed potential land use code amendments and they did agree that looking at the
[1:36:28] special use permit criteria would be a good idea, you know, just updating it, refining
[1:36:33] it, to stand to have some improvements overall.
[1:36:36] And we could put the cumulative impacts, concerns into it at that time.
[1:36:42] You know, if we get any applications right now, it's on the table, we're aware.
[1:36:46] And we know that, you know, we don't necessarily have to have it specifically spelled out.
[1:36:51] We've got the criteria to use it.
[1:36:54] Review standards of the Planions Code Section 5-1802A are met.
[1:36:59] Here's two sample motions.
[1:37:01] One would be to adopt it as presented and adopt the resolution.
[1:37:08] And the other option would be to continue it with a remand to the planning commission to look at specific criterion standards.
[1:37:20] If we were to choose the, you know, two land use code, what's the timing on that one?
[1:37:29] Let's see.
[1:37:32] We could have it to the planning commission in August, so you could probably see it around September.
[1:37:38] And then the other way, if we were to remand the specific one back to commission.
[1:37:44] July and you'd see it by the end of July or August as a month.
[1:37:48] It's a month.
[1:37:49] Yeah.
[1:37:50] You know, it's on our radar, we know about it, we don't have, we don't expect any applications
[1:37:55] that are going to have this conflict, so I think we're good for now, but we know that
[1:38:01] we need to work, do a little more work on the, especially the standards.
[1:38:05] Personally, I think, yeah, addressing the larger picture through the land use code amendment
[1:38:09] will probably make the most sense so that the cumulative impact language covers more than
[1:38:15] in just this specific instance.
[1:38:18] That's my thought.
[1:38:19] Other commissioners?
[1:38:24] Chris, with your last sentence, which option are you leaning
[1:38:31] towards at one?
[1:38:34] Are you trying to get something in place?
[1:38:36] Yeah, option one is to adopt it as presented at this time.
[1:38:40] But with staff direction to bring a land use
[1:38:43] code amendment to address the cumulative impacts
[1:38:47] that would apply it, then that's going to apply to anything that, yes, any application.
[1:38:52] So that's, I think that makes the most sense to me.
[1:38:55] So yes, then our conversation about this last week and having heard public comment, I agree.
[1:39:04] Mr. Chair Cooper.
[1:39:06] I agree with that, much too, and I just have a question on the sort of, what does the classification
[1:39:12] of the property?
[1:39:13] So if these properties are being used for commercial use, did it become commercial properties and do we start charging them a commercial rate?
[1:39:25] If they are currently residential, I would say they're vacant and they're commercial.
[1:39:30] You talked about it a little.
[1:39:32] And the last time you've been used for grazing, if they get an accession for grazing, if they're now using a commercial rate, would that just allow their exemption?
[1:39:43] Yeah, that would be up to the assessor to determine the extent to which their assessment would change.
[1:39:51] There is an opportunity in the statutes to carve out.
[1:39:55] You know, you've got a 35 acre parcel.
[1:40:00] We use two acres of it for commercial. There's a way that you can sort of parse out some of that, but that would definitely be something to discuss with the assessor's office on how that works. But we did have that conversation at the last meeting. And talked about how we could do better internally with some of this cross communication or using the assessor's office as an agency referral so that they're aware that there are new uses on a product.
[1:40:31] And then I'll just chime in one of the potential future applicants and a past venue noted that it's very hard to make a living
[1:40:41] agriculturally and I would agree that a lot of places are looking for additional ways to bring in income on agricultural property.
[1:40:49] So just blankly saying, well, that's going to be commercial when there are multiple uses, when it is actually used for grazing some of the time.
[1:40:57] That's just some of the complexity of this, so I think, yeah, I think that makes sense
[1:41:00] to have a chat with the assessor and citizens as to how we move forward with that, but I
[1:41:07] think for this instance, I think we could potentially move forward with option one.
[1:41:16] Well, those glasses look crazy on Zoom, sorry.
[1:41:24] I'm sorry, Chris. I thought you were considering option two to send it back to the CPC to consider
[1:41:33] the impact. No, no. So option one would change, potentially change the land use code standards
[1:41:41] and it would apply to many more sections than just this one is my understanding.
[1:41:48] So, option would be to adopt the amendment to the Lennie's Code for Section 5-307-4
[1:41:55] Strayal Culture and Open to allow social and scenic uses, subject to one or two step review
[1:42:00] and adopt resolution number 2022-26, based on the findings listed here, but then separately
[1:42:07] giving direction to the planning department to begin preparation of an update to 5-1-0-0-2.
[1:42:22] I'm talking about the killer of impacts of all special abuse.
[1:42:25] Correct.
[1:42:27] Yeah.
[1:42:28] And no.
[1:42:29] Sorry.
[1:42:29] Then I wasn't following the conversation.
[1:42:31] What did you say in terms of timing, like if people cried for this for this year, they
[1:42:38] just don't fall under.
[1:42:39] We're just not being in their views, so there's no meaning.
[1:42:42] Well, and staff last time did say that cumulative impacts can be considered.
[1:42:48] I just wanted to spell it out, so I'm actually comfortable with, particularly this year,
[1:42:53] almost half over, moving forward as this, and then Kay just said that one would be,
[1:43:00] we would see it potentially in August and one we would see it in September.
[1:43:03] So I feel like addressing the larger picture and having that come in front of us potentially
[1:43:08] in September makes more, it's more efficient in my opinion.
[1:43:12] And then I would like to hear directly from an assessor on her recommendations on commercial
[1:43:20] use with all these different gradations that are coming from us,
[1:43:27] or how she would approach
[1:43:29] that piece, just for our knowledge.
[1:43:45] So she was just reminding us that when the assessor looks at valuation and use of property
[1:43:53] it's as of like noon on January 1st every year as to how the property is used but we
[1:43:58] Please clearly can invite the assessor to come to that next meeting when we have that
[1:44:05] discussion about the cumulative impacts, or even before if you want to hear a little
[1:44:09] bit more about how she would categorize and classify property based on different circumstances
[1:44:17] or scenarios.
[1:44:19] Yeah, I mean it's a little tricky and this is what I want to discuss with her is the property
[1:44:27] wouldn't necessarily have to be used that way, but it was advertised for use that way,
[1:44:32] then it's commercial, just like a hotel room doesn't need to be occupied, but it's advertised
[1:44:36] for occupancy, then it's commercial, so let's have her come in and address it because
[1:44:42] it is a little different than a hotel, agricultural land is different than a hotel, so I think it's
[1:44:48] best to have we can give her a heads up on so she can have time to think about it if she hasn't
[1:44:52] already and then have her come and join us for a discussion. And just as a note, this is a public
[1:45:00] The item does require public hearing. You had opened the public hearing last time. It's at your discretion if you reopen it today. For public comment. Yeah. Okay, let's go ahead and reopen the peering for public comment. And if the public would like to comment, please, oh, we have Michael Paradise. That's, oh, that's sorry, that's the white hand. That's not the, if you have, if you'd like to make a comment, please raise your hand.
[1:45:30] on Zoom, which is under the Reactions button and
[1:45:38] seeing none, close the public comment.
[1:45:44] Any other questions?
[1:45:46] If not, I'd be ready for a motion.
[1:45:49] Oh, sorry Ryan Regetti, why don't you come up to the mic.
[1:45:53] So we're still going to have time to offer recommendations or stuff all over this for review, correct?
[1:45:58] At the time of this special use permit application, yes.
[1:46:01] This is just a code.
[1:46:04] Okay.
[1:46:05] All right.
[1:46:05] Yeah.
[1:46:05] I wasn't aware of it until last meeting.
[1:46:07] Yeah.
[1:46:08] It doesn't take anything away from any special use permit review.
[1:46:14] We follow all the processes with all the review agencies and requiring all ethical permits
[1:46:19] and everything.
[1:46:21] This is just updating the LAMI's code to allow an additional use subject to one or two step
[1:46:29] review in the episode. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. It's just not. I used by right that they could. No. No. Okay. I'm just. Yeah. I was kind of concerned with when the last video was going to open. I'm
[1:46:42] used by right that would be would be in reactive mode for every event. It's occurred. Right. And with particular interest in in the road aspect of it. That's why I was
[1:46:54] I was pushing for the cumulative impacts of the language, so I'm hoping we're there.
[1:47:00] Oh, Ryan asked if this was going to be a problem for road use.
[1:47:13] And he was reassured that there would still be a step one or two step review required for each permit.
[1:47:21] so he's feeling good again. I haven't seen any other questions so I'm ready to move to adopt the
[1:47:28] amendment to the San Miguel County Land Use Code Section 5-307, first re-agriculture and open
[1:47:36] parentheses, F zone to allow social and scenic uses subject to one step or two step review
[1:47:42] depending on number of attendees and adopt resolution 2022-26 based on the finding that the
[1:47:49] proposed amendment complies with the standards of land use code section 5-1802 land use code
[1:47:56] amendments and is consistent with land use code section 1-4 purposes of the land use
[1:48:02] code.
[1:48:05] Okay.
[1:48:06] Any further discussion?
[1:48:08] Yeah.
[1:48:08] How do you vote?
[1:48:10] Aye.
[1:48:11] Aye.
[1:48:13] Great.
[1:48:13] Thank you.
[1:48:15] Let's take a five minute break and we'll come back to.
[1:48:24] You administrative matters.
[1:48:31] Reporting stopped.
[1:48:36] Thank you.
[1:48:37] All right, we are back and we are going to adjust our agenda just a little bit.
[1:48:44] We're going to move item 9C, discussion of potential local ballot items, and
[1:48:54] then we will go back to our regular order.
[1:48:59] So Mike, I think you're going to start us off on this?
[1:49:03] Mike, just stepped out.
[1:49:05] Oh, okay.
[1:49:06] We will.
[1:49:08] Uh-huh.
[1:49:10] So we have, we'll get going and just a second here.
[1:49:19] And where is,
[1:49:23] I don't, he was there.
[1:49:24] I don't see him now.
[1:49:31] Is there's a San Miguel County?
[1:49:35] Is that?
[1:49:39] Brandy's here.
[1:49:44] And Mike, if you are here with us, there you are. Go ahead with the ballot,
[1:49:55] ballot item.
[1:49:56] item. Very good thanks to my smers, so this is
[1:50:00] Item 9-C. And we know that we have a July 29 deadline if the board wishes to notify the clerk, but they're intent to put a question on the November ballot. And then September 9th, I'm sorry, I just ran up the seat. We know we saw you. Not only that, but it's just like that. And then September 9th is the day to certify.
[1:50:30] that language, if the board chooses to put a question on the ballot, obviously, there
[1:50:37] is an expense to do so, however, if the county is putting on, intends to put on a question
[1:50:44] such as for logic tax and the ability now that it's taxed, you have allowed greater latitude
[1:50:54] with both consent to use lodging tax dollars for other purposes.
[1:51:00] The cost of the county to put additional questions on
[1:51:03] would be somewhat negligible for additional questions.
[1:51:10] I know that I heard in the discussion earlier today
[1:51:13] Commissioner Cooper bring up the idea again of an
[1:51:18] affordable housing in the Lemme, and I know that we talked about that logic tax of
[1:51:24] also been speaking with the sheriff and Jennifer Dinsmore about their
[1:51:29] potential interest in public safety about measure. There could be a sales tax or
[1:51:38] property tax measure before for any of these ongoing funding items at the board
[1:51:44] wishes. And I just wanted to give you some frame of reference. At our current
[1:51:51] valuation, I have a mill increase would generate just under $500,000. And it's
[1:52:01] pretty easy to correlate then a full mill would generate just under $1 million
[1:52:09] in property tax.
[1:52:11] If the board were to consider,
[1:52:13] and I know that this is getting ahead of us,
[1:52:15] but I just wanted you to have this in your frame
[1:52:17] for reference, as you consider,
[1:52:21] if you want to put on a question and ask how much money
[1:52:24] it would be a question we need to generate
[1:52:27] for the specific purpose and use of these hills tax,
[1:52:32] and our current hills tax rates are 1% sales tax generated
[1:52:37] 4.5 million dollars last year. So a 10 of a percent increase to that would generate approximately
[1:52:48] 450,000 dollars, 700,000 dollars approximately for a 0.15% increase and obviously a 0.2% increase
[1:53:02] were generating $900,000. So really more than anything I wanted the sheriff to
[1:53:08] build, share his thoughts with the board as well as for the board to give some
[1:53:14] step direction on any specific areas that you may wish for us to research and
[1:53:22] and bring back examples and for future valid questions.
[1:53:30] Okay.
[1:53:31] I'll turn it back to you at this point.
[1:53:32] All right.
[1:53:33] Sheriff Masters, would you like to speak to us?
[1:53:36] What do you have in mind?
[1:53:37] Yes.
[1:53:39] Thank you.
[1:53:39] I'm sorry.
[1:53:40] I'm not there in person.
[1:53:41] I have a leg-in screen.
[1:53:43] I have an operator on the list.
[1:53:45] Oh.
[1:53:45] It's my first sitting here.
[1:53:46] Some people say,
[1:53:47] Sheriff, you look terrible.
[1:53:48] But actually, I had to have a full late cast on.
[1:53:54] Oh, gosh.
[1:53:55] Now, after the injury, so I just need to run to act in my age.
[1:54:03] It's just a problem.
[1:54:05] But we were looking at our needs in that very room.
[1:54:12] A number of things.
[1:54:15] research and rescue is always a big one in our mind, especially when we come, when
[1:54:23] we're thinking about the funding source which might be sales tax which is, as I understand,
[1:54:27] it is some March 70 to 90 percent, so I'm going to buy our tourist population and our
[1:54:33] search and rescue missions are generated by largely by our tourist populations as well.
[1:54:41] And then we also need to have,
[1:54:49] we're looking at our wildfire issues and thankfully to the, sorry, another call.
[1:55:01] Okay,
[1:55:05] to our fire districts, the fire districts have expanded to include all of our county
[1:55:12] who will start to be within the boundaries of the fire district, which definitely helps
[1:55:18] us and can get us out of the wildfire, actual suppression business. But we know that initial
[1:55:27] So attack in the future is going to be increasingly important when we have single tree lightning strikes
[1:55:35] for very small fires and we can develop the initial attack suppression with the help of our new helicopter
[1:55:48] and making bucket-dropping by next year on those very small fires before we get resources
[1:55:57] from the state that would be a big problem for us, as well.
[1:56:04] And of course we also have our increase in housing issues and we're looking at some day trying to build
[1:56:13] a barracks type building that could house our employees right now and rent a
[1:56:22] condo of a thousand employees that are on their off duty hours and they're working
[1:56:28] in the jail so they if they're traveling through Grand Junction or Duff Creek or
[1:56:34] someplace where they live for work they go to that particular condo to spend
[1:56:41] Even if they're off to the hours and then come back to work, we might have built a barracks
[1:56:48] next to the sheriff's office and tell you right so those people who have
[1:56:52] immediate housing and kind of run the sheriff's office more like a
[1:56:58] traditional fire department or where people might might have rest periods during their work shift
[1:57:05] Which might be funny for 48 hours long
[1:57:10] That might solve some of our housing crisis when it comes to housing, our communications
[1:57:18] and corrections deputies and our patrol deputies.
[1:57:23] So we add all those different projects together, which definitely needs money, I'd say the
[1:57:31] public is an agreement that the search for rescue and wildfire suppression is going to be critical
[1:57:39] and are coming years and I think we've got some support from the public and
[1:57:45] agreeing to use small sales tax increases and already fund specific
[1:57:54] problems or specific programs that they could point to that are saying that's
[1:58:09] So, if you have $1,000 in mind for either of those specific projects, or both, or both?
[1:58:19] I certainly, if we can generate half a million, 600,000 a year, I think that would be good
[1:58:31] money to fund some of these programs, obviously, the capital project is going to be a little
[1:58:43] more difficult, but possibly we could use a portion of that money to do a lease purchase
[1:58:52] or something on those lines, a barracks-type building, along with how we also need
[1:59:02] search for rescue, the two search for rescue building to house our equipment.
[1:59:08] and maybe we could do that in combination with something along those lines.
[1:59:13] Do a police have some type that we've done in the past?
[1:59:20] When we built the jail where we could use some of that revenue source
[1:59:26] to help pay for that?
[1:59:28] So I would like to have, you know, 500, 600,000 a year.
[1:59:40] I have a quick question. So if you were to do, if we were to put a ballot initiative on
[1:59:48] whether it be sales dedicated sales tax on Mill Levy, would that then cover, or you
[1:59:54] would put it into both search and rescue and wildfire upgrades and then if it's wild
[2:00:00] The other fire, does that money get shared with the other fire districts in North County? I think the wildfire process of it, I've been stressed with upgrading the capabilities of the helicopter, we have to do bucket drops. Already, the other summer we're planning on doing spying, it's where we can instantly locate and identify where our fire is, and give resources to it.
[2:00:29] possible transport small groups close to the scene. I think that we continue
[2:00:37] you can transport firefighting crews close to the scene of a lot of small
[2:00:43] wildfire ones. It's just beginning yet to start to see if we can't knock that
[2:00:49] down and then the addition future might make it so that we've got the training
[2:00:55] the equivalent of expertise to do bucket drops from nearby ponds to suppress that fire
[2:01:04] before it gets out of control. I think that's going to be our really only big hope
[2:01:15] not having a disaster in our county on these years, if this drop situation continues.
[2:01:24] So basically you wouldn't give the other fire districts money, it would just be used to upgrade the capabilities within the county for whatever fire, wherever that could happen.
[2:01:38] I would stress a couple of different things, first off, I think we're, because there is
[2:01:45] a need not mind there, we start developing a reserve, a firefighting reserve so that
[2:01:51] we can, without hesitation, order in the air drops that we need, the air retarded, large
[2:02:00] ones that we know are, you know, I can spend a couple hundred thousand dollars in a couple
[2:02:09] hours, but on more fighting a quick moving a wildfire that's on private property, we could
[2:02:21] have a lot of money spent very quickly and to start having a firefighting reserve amount
[2:02:32] somewhere in the county. I think that would be a smart thing for the county there to
[2:02:40] and ask over to portion that, maybe it's 50,000 a year or something, but this is coming
[2:02:46] up into our reserves, so when the sheriff spends half a million dollars an afternoon, we're
[2:02:56] prepared for that.
[2:02:58] Great.
[2:02:58] In addition to that, I think the fire fund is going to increase in cost every year, the state
[2:03:05] that we contribute to is going to increase in cost, and we could potentially pay for our share of that every year because of this as well.
[2:03:18] But I would not give any money to the individuals who are fired to do so.
[2:03:22] This is more of the, when the fire is here.
[2:03:26] Does it turn to me to say, this exceeds our capability to ensure that it is now year-fired
[2:03:32] and that you need to have the resources available to suppress it?
[2:03:40] Great.
[2:03:41] Thanks for that.
[2:03:42] And then just a quick, another question, and I'll get to Commissioner Cooper.
[2:03:46] And I'm not sure who to ask this of.
[2:03:49] I personally, I think the sales tax is important because, again, as you said, many of the responses
[2:03:56] a solution rescue and even fire started our from our visitors and spreading the costs
[2:04:02] out so they can help us with that is important but Mike or whomever would you be, is it one
[2:04:08] or the other, is it a combination?
[2:04:11] I would suggest it's one or the other just for reference that when you look at the total
[2:04:17] sales tax rate not just the county's 1% sales tax, until you ride it's 8.65% in Norwood
[2:04:24] at 7.8% for reference. Town of Breckenridge is 8.88% and you know the highest one in this
[2:04:34] state is that are the towns of Frazier and Winter Park at 11.2% but if the
[2:04:40] district board wanted to put forth a question for a 2-10th of a percent sales tax
[2:04:46] increase that would bring that would generate $900,000 in annual spending
[2:04:52] currently and that will bring the total sales tax rate to 8.85.
[2:05:05] Okay, let's go to Commissioner Cooper. Sorry.
[2:05:13] Okay. Okay. Okay.
[2:05:17] Okay. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Cooper.
[2:05:22] So just a couple of things, as you know, share a fill, we've been working really hard with
[2:05:29] other counties at the state level to get more funding negative funding for search and
[2:05:34] rescue.
[2:05:35] And we were successful with that.
[2:05:37] There is an additional $2 to $3 million a year that would love a search rescue.
[2:05:44] Also considerable increase in funding for wildfire, wildfire mitigation, wildfire response,
[2:05:49] while our plus recovery, et cetera.
[2:05:53] So we don't want to be really hard to get those
[2:05:56] funds at the state level so that we did not have to go back
[2:05:59] to our taxpayers and asking the state to increase their
[2:06:05] coffers to kind of reduce the impacts locally.
[2:06:10] So I would just ask that, I mean, especially the expertise
[2:06:16] of gender that you guys really look at those opportunities at the state and make sure
[2:06:21] you're considered all of those before you go back to our taxpayers, not saying that
[2:06:27] that would cover everything.
[2:06:29] You may need to go back to our taxpayers, but I would ask that you also look and see what
[2:06:35] is available at the state to reduce the burden on our taxpayers.
[2:06:38] years. And then just two big things that I've been considering for the future is one is
[2:06:46] the housing mitigation. You brought up your great specific housing. Every department has
[2:06:50] housing needs and you know beyond the county we have housing needs. So I think the county
[2:06:56] does need to look at how we generate more funds for affordable housing. We just took a step
[2:07:02] to do that, small step through residential litigation.
[2:07:07] We're going to look at commercial litigation next.
[2:07:11] And I think we need to start really considering the levy
[2:07:15] for affordable housing as a broad, to not aggressively
[2:07:19] that to spread that impact out across the whole county.
[2:07:28] And then this idea of climate resiliency,
[2:07:31] It's not just walk by, there are, you know, several other issues that we're going to need
[2:07:36] to, um, in road bridge, um, in, um, natural resources, et cetera, that we're going
[2:07:43] to need to start a paperwork, and, um, I think we need to look at a, um, some type of
[2:07:53] under resiliency fund, that is either we create a bond fund to tap into opportunities there
[2:08:04] or we look at local tax that can then be bonded upon to address all of our needs.
[2:08:13] And that you mentioned the initial attack suppression, well, absolutely, I don't argue that
[2:08:20] that is really important.
[2:08:21] And we also have massive expenses in front of us for mitigation needs, you know, whole order outreach,
[2:08:28] working with West Region, World Card Council, and make sure they're adequately funded
[2:08:32] to do a lot of our, you know, residential mitigation needs.
[2:08:37] So there's considerable, beyond the sheriff's office, there's considerable need there
[2:08:41] that the county needs to look at addressing.
[2:08:44] And, you know, I feel that the approach to that is more of a kind of crime or resiliency
[2:08:52] fund as opposed to just piecemealing every single little aspect we need to do to address the changing climate.
[2:09:00] I think at some point, taxpayers must start saying no.
[2:09:03] We just keep permanently adding on.
[2:09:06] But I think they do have the capacity to understand sort of a larger one-time funding question
[2:09:13] and to address some of the bigger needs.
[2:09:17] And then to your point of the reserve,
[2:09:20] we do have a university reserve.
[2:09:21] And most of those are have gone towards, well, COVID,
[2:09:27] but we haven't had a buyer, thankfully,
[2:09:32] I'm not being on the wood,
[2:09:34] that the county has needed to pay for, hopefully,
[2:09:38] if we can ask why we were in strike,
[2:09:40] they continue to strike from public lands
[2:09:42] and then we can rely on our public agency partners.
[2:09:47] We can't count on that, but maybe the commissioners
[2:09:51] just asked if they increased the funds
[2:09:54] over 600,000 a year, that fund,
[2:09:58] we just asked if that'd be increased soon.
[2:10:00] So, we do have that fund. We could look at increasing that fund even more. And so we do have a fund to, you know, that doesn't need to be specifically in the sheriff's office. That is at the county to address those emergency needs that come up. So, I think there's an opportunity there, you know, especially with increasing 75% fund, et cetera, to look at existing funds and our existing reserve, which is very healthy.
[2:10:29] beyond the required table and emergency reserve to dedicate some more of that
[2:10:36] without pointing back to our taxpayers. So, and then finally I would just say
[2:10:41] that my knowledge of a balance measures across the state that have addressed
[2:10:46] how the seat meeting has been.
[2:10:50] Lands, I think, your computer.
[2:10:52] It just didn't plan it at all.
[2:10:54] have been relatively popular, so most of the ones I've heard have recently passed, even in conservative communities.
[2:11:05] We know that we have a more sort of a tax-specific, I guess, community.
[2:11:13] And so, I would maybe agree with your assessment that the taxpayers would be in support of sort of
[2:11:25] star mobfire. I think they would also very much appreciate looking at this more realistic read and potentially doing a larger
[2:11:36] Millivvy, CFTACs combined, whatever it is to address more of the issue outside of
[2:11:42] in addition to the sheriff's office.
[2:11:45] But I just wonder if you've done any kind of survey or pooling, giving kind of data
[2:11:51] to this guy to you in this room, or you just talk more.
[2:11:59] I don't have any, I don't have any polling, I don't have any.
[2:12:08] I think just generally, peacekeeping services are supported in our community, but I'm
[2:12:17] not sure people think that there's a need for more police cars and the kind of traditional
[2:12:27] things that the county funds already. There is some requests for increased protection measures
[2:12:39] at our schools from our peacekeeping agencies and if we're exploring that this summer to see
[2:12:50] do to improve the security around our schools.
[2:12:59] But I don't feel I want to see it a large cry for more than that.
[2:13:05] There is a lot of complaints about traffic and the congestion and speeding and direct
[2:13:12] describing, but when we get our staff stabilized, I think we can have some impact on all that
[2:13:21] in our regular budget.
[2:13:27] But I appreciate everybody's concern is there's some method that we can
[2:13:33] make the whole county safer in the future.
[2:13:39] But when I'm looking at these issues,
[2:13:43] I'm looking at what's in my face right now.
[2:13:47] And I see a out of control of wildfire.
[2:13:51] I see constant search for rescue missions
[2:13:55] that end to try to develop,
[2:13:58] or when to mitigate that is really hard for me
[2:14:03] to get my head around and I'm dealing with something
[2:14:06] that could potentially happen at the end of the moment.
[2:14:09] You've been very fortunate, except for the quality draw fire, I think, just a private
[2:14:18] property fire, primarily did have to come with some money on the rehab side with home
[2:14:26] draw. We haven't had to spend tremendous amount of money on wildfire suppression.
[2:14:36] But I'm also, I'm very close to it, every day during wildfire there is a meeting and
[2:14:47] each one of us involved in it can be a command of that meeting.
[2:14:52] Out of that fire there is a suppression of the fire you have to stand up and state it, state the thing.
[2:14:57] Understand.
[2:15:00] And agree with that plan for the day. And when I stand up and do that, that means that the county is responsible for the very portion of it. And one of these days it's going to be a lot of money. I appreciate the county is good financial help. And we have a million dollars in reserves. And that's, that's once again, two after millions of, maybe even,
[2:15:34] So I'm going to jump in here. I think you're hearing general support for whichever ends
[2:15:43] up coming our way, more likely support for sales tax. Commissioner Cooper has added
[2:15:49] some additional things to think about in there in terms of housing and climate resiliency.
[2:15:55] I think these deserve more discussion.
[2:15:58] We're following quite behind here on our schedule.
[2:16:02] So unless there's a very specific question or other need
[2:16:05] for follow-up, I'd like to move on.
[2:16:11] Could I get a thumbs up or down from the board.
[2:16:16] Would you like me to work with the sheriff
[2:16:18] and Jennifer on a potential question
[2:16:21] for additional conversation at our June 29th work session?
[2:16:27] I think that would be great.
[2:16:28] Commissioner Wearing?
[2:16:29] Thumbs up.
[2:16:30] Commissioner Cooper.
[2:16:31] I have a lot of questions and I'm not comfortable
[2:16:34] with that approach yet.
[2:16:35] I'd like to hear some of those responses first.
[2:16:38] And just to add to that list is, could you come back to us
[2:16:45] with how much you are charging for search and rescue
[2:16:48] is when they don't have a hypercard.
[2:16:53] Yeah, you could just come back to us
[2:16:55] with that number, like an example.
[2:16:56] And how many, you know, what we're presenting
[2:16:59] is that we're helpful for our knowledge
[2:17:02] at what we're trying to do in the state,
[2:17:03] to do more funds for social justice.
[2:17:06] You've got two thumbs up for coming back
[2:17:08] with more information, and perhaps Commissioner Cooper
[2:17:11] could share her additional questions
[2:17:14] so that those could be addressed in the meantime.
[2:17:16] time. I did just ask questions. Hopefully those were captured. Oh I thought you said you had more.
[2:17:24] I have your questions written down and I'll follow up with Jennifer and share on this.
[2:17:30] Regarding other ballot measures, what is the board's greatest interest?
[2:17:48] Housing and
[2:17:50] Just a reminder that that watching tax generates
[2:17:52] like 50, maybe on high years, maybe 60.
[2:17:59] Yeah, a year in non-incorporated.
[2:18:02] And I've had a few discussions with Kier Skinner.
[2:18:09] It was just a point in ED at MTI.
[2:18:12] And she's going to come forward to us with a proposal.
[2:18:16] I think we've seen some of the improvements there.
[2:18:19] on behalf of the NTI being much more responsive to local communities, so I'm a little hesitant
[2:18:28] to go that route. I think there's great opportunity for our marketing entities to serve more
[2:18:33] of a local purpose, and that $40 to $50,000 really isn't much in the scheme of things,
[2:18:40] and it certainly happens, not going to get as much performance as it at all.
[2:18:44] So I'm still a little hesitant on that one for those reasons.
[2:18:53] And if we're going to have a further discussion on the 29th as in a work session, you know,
[2:18:59] I'd like some more specific thoughts on affordable housing, middle-levy and climate resiliency fund,
[2:19:06] exactly what we'd be after.
[2:19:09] We did just make a significant increase in fees to help us the county have more funds to address it
[2:19:16] But I'd like to do a little more information on that and with that
[2:19:22] Mike I was thinking we could potentially do nine we could we could post
[2:19:26] I apologize
[2:19:27] Commissioner holsterman and love that you want to keep us on
[2:19:47] I was thinking we could move 9A and B to after our lunch break and see if we could
[2:19:59] Get
[2:20:02] Okay,
[2:20:06] so let's go to 9D and that is approval of resolution instituting an additional re-billing charge. Brandi, I believe you're on and could be unmuted.
[2:20:18] Good.
[2:20:20] Okay.
[2:20:21] Hi.
[2:20:23] Yeah, we can hear you.
[2:20:25] Go ahead.
[2:20:25] No.
[2:20:26] Keep going.
[2:20:27] I just drafted a sort of solution that helps offset the cost.
[2:20:31] I think the link with notice is to these accounts of smaller
[2:20:35] balances.
[2:20:37] Great.
[2:20:38] It's something that is statutory.
[2:20:39] It says we may do it.
[2:20:42] And postage and paper just continue increasing.
[2:20:46] So I thought this would help offset.
[2:20:49] Any questions?
[2:20:53] No questions from me.
[2:20:54] Thanks, Brandy.
[2:20:57] Prussia Cooper.
[2:21:00] You're muted.
[2:21:01] You're muted.
[2:21:08] I'm going to turn on the chair to say the chair of the road
[2:21:10] which is 8.2-3, instituting, and additional legal
[2:21:14] and charge of the legal tax account telling us that $50.
[2:21:17] I will second.
[2:21:18] Okay. Any discussion?
[2:21:20] Seeing none, how do you vote?
[2:21:22] Aye.
[2:21:22] Aye.
[2:21:23] Great.
[2:21:24] and then I think we can move to 10A, social services and I think Lenea, I see you on there.
[2:21:34] Hello.
[2:21:37] Hello.
[2:21:39] I'm just going to do a little bit of care with me.
[2:21:44] So, we've submitted a packet that includes our balance sheet from social services.
[2:21:49] It's going to be held down here, along with our earned revenue and expenditures for April.
[2:21:57] Expenditures for our ATT transfers may, and then the next we are check registries to
[2:22:04] come to the main, and then our mobile reports and our allocation to the one with care for
[2:22:09] them.
[2:22:10] And then as you can see, we have our case load for our benefits and a graph that can be put
[2:22:16] together so it should look the same, just do the change of the next month added.
[2:22:22] And as you can see, you know, the numbers for May are about to be seen as the month before.
[2:22:28] We are going up on our Medicaid.
[2:22:31] So there's just a few thing about Medicaid.
[2:22:33] You just see there's no.
[2:22:34] We did get extension through July to the teens for the public health emergency for all Medicaid clients.
[2:22:41] We'll continue to be locked in.
[2:22:44] They will review that July to the teens.
[2:22:47] We make a decision if they determine the goal from being locked in or so on how the government
[2:22:53] exceeds.
[2:22:54] There were two angels at the first 15th when they were already there.
[2:22:58] So we're just kind of on every 60 day wait for that.
[2:23:04] So those are kind of the financials in the case loads that I have in that first part of
[2:23:08] that.
[2:23:09] Okay.
[2:23:10] No.
[2:23:11] Any questions for Lenea on that first part on the packet?
[2:23:16] Seeing none, we need a motion on this. I believe.
[2:23:23] The
[2:23:29] food, the food services report on top of the months of April and May as they are
[2:23:38] happy.
[2:23:40] Second. Okay. Any further discussion? How do you vote?
[2:23:45] Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. And then next up, Wenaya.
[2:23:49] And we're still asking if we have any child care CCAPMOU for our school year at the States.
[2:23:57] And I've included both a memo from the State to us along with the MOU which kind of lays
[2:24:05] out some of those reporting things that our research act program is required to do to the
[2:24:10] States.
[2:24:12] and regards to learning continuing to remain writers and review along the lives around that program, and this would be approved by the state-level media law.
[2:24:27] Can I share a cover?
[2:24:30] So as noted in this operation memo, there are some changes happening in the state and I cannot recall if I got this on a potential agenda I'm just trying to care about it, but if we could schedule a word session with our sort of department and bright futures, which is our
[2:24:57] of the L.C.
[2:25:01] And at some point, we're going to have to approve, I believe, or make a recommendation at some point, really, soon, for a bright future is continuing in that role. There's, I think, now, a formal approval requirement by the county, and I believe it's about the end of this month. I can't really exact process for that, but that's something that will need to be, that will need to do. And then there's going to be more coordination between that entity.
[2:25:28] the ELC stands for really learning coordinator, whatever it is.
[2:25:38] I do remember all the meetings to the Department of Urban Childhood
[2:25:42] and out of the Department of Human Services.
[2:25:45] Right, and so there's going to need to be more coordination on
[2:25:48] seek out funding with that entity, so I know that Carol and
[2:25:54] Kathleen have been working that out, but it would be helpful
[2:25:56] to come back to the board at some point because I believe we're going to need to improve that.
[2:26:00] So just a note to ask me to give that on a agenda for this week.
[2:26:06] There are at least one part of it pretty quickly, and I believe that Carol maybe, unfortunately,
[2:26:12] will have to represent a letter to us that we might need to ratify to the state.
[2:26:18] And last week there was a letter of support for Bright Futures to be the last week.
[2:26:28] I don't know if it probably hadn't had a chance to review any of those minutes or anything.
[2:26:33] Commissioner Cooper, you weren't available for that but we didn't have that on the agenda last week.
[2:26:37] Oh, great. Okay. I'm glad that got that. Yeah.
[2:26:42] And it's strong start numbers could be
[2:26:46] at that, invited to that work session, as well.
[2:26:49] It feels like there's a lot of changes that are happening.
[2:26:52] And it's going to be implemented.
[2:26:54] And it would be helpful for you all to bring to the commissioners.
[2:27:00] You know, what the intended path of all those changes is going to be.
[2:27:04] and how we can best help make sure this is a smooth finish.
[2:27:09] Great.
[2:27:12] Any other questions, comments?
[2:27:16] Seeing none, I move to approve the Chair Senator and the Colorado Child Care Assistance
[2:27:21] Program. I'm a random of understanding beginning June 1st, 2022 through June 30th, 2025.
[2:27:29] Okay, any further discussion? Not how do you vote?
[2:27:34] Hi.
[2:27:35] Hi.
[2:27:36] Great. Thank you so much, Linnea.
[2:27:37] you did great.
[2:27:41] With that, I think we will take our lunch break. We'll be back at 12.45.
[2:27:45] We'll continue with items 9A and B and then move into natural resources.
[2:27:52] So we'll see everybody back here. 12.45.
[2:28:09] She did sign. She did totally sign.
[2:28:16] Reporting agenda.
[2:28:17] All right, we're going to get back in business here.
[2:28:22] We were going to address the two leftover items from the morning first, but due to a time
[2:28:27] constraint, we're going to actually stick with natural resources and special projects for
[2:28:32] our first item and we'll put the other two under manager matters this afternoon.
[2:28:41] Start is getting set up here.
[2:28:45] So the first item 11a is discussion of the climate action plan.
[2:28:53] We're going to pull that up.
[2:29:31] While she's doing that, I'll just let folks know.
[2:29:33] So the two items that we're going to add into manager matters is a discussion of the budget
[2:29:38] process for 2023 and an MOU with Monizuma Water regarding the Higmer doc.
[2:30:44] Sorry for the dead air. We're getting a presentation up in
[2:31:48] the agenda that we would adopt. We this wasn't this wasn't as part of the packet. So I don't think we'll get to adopt it today. We're going to discuss it. And you might need to move closer to a mic or the mic closer to you. Okay. Much better.
[2:32:08] So just going over this action plan again for the third.
[2:32:14] time looking through the action items that were included in the St. Miguel and
[2:32:21] Ureigh County Climate Action Plan. I've tried to put together the action items in
[2:32:30] a format that is easy to look at for you all and possibly for the adoption in the
[2:32:42] the future as this turns into a work session again that the first page of this document
[2:32:50] here, what I did is in this very far corner put in our action items. These are from the
[2:33:02] current plan, where the X's are located, these are what are currently in the plan. And that
[2:33:12] add are additional items that are coming in per recommendation. And then the following
[2:33:20] tabs are specifics from these objectives. So I feel like any adoption of this that maybe
[2:33:32] adopting these larger level items in the objectives, and then the details that we have
[2:33:43] in here in these pages can be out of two. This is a working document, but I feel like
[2:33:51] we need to get to an agreement on the larger objectives that we have here.
[2:33:59] For instance, yesterday, Carmen received a phone call from the gentleman about what is
[2:34:06] our policy on installing EV chargers for a hotel.
[2:34:13] That was sent to building.
[2:34:15] Building came to me.
[2:34:17] We don't have a policy.
[2:34:18] So the questions are going to start coming.
[2:34:21] and that's also why I think it's important to identify and highlight who the departments
[2:34:29] are that are going to be moving forward with these.
[2:34:34] Any spreadsheets we have areas that are in progress or not started.
[2:34:41] I also included in here information for your commissioners as far as who could be the
[2:34:49] department support department and then information just in the past three
[2:34:54] meetings when a lot of the questions come up what's
[2:35:00] Where are they? So I left that information in here. So those questions can just be right under the question or have identify where the region is at at this point, who started this, who can contribute to this, where Santa is in certain task. And so on that left column, I included information. And so that's no task that we're looking at taking on, but just additional information to help make decisions.
[2:35:28] were just to know in a broader planning scope other information.
[2:35:36] Some of the white I looked at Boulder County, and I worked with Commissioner
[2:35:45] Holstrom on some additional items to put in here under the objectives that are
[2:35:53] still listed in that first sheet.
[2:35:58] included some policy that can be considered and
[2:36:09] so under
[2:36:15] the direction that I've been given
[2:36:16] to look at I was told and explained and showed slides from Boulder County's planning in our
[2:36:25] last meeting I reduced all that information and included it in here into the climate change
[2:36:31] and under the action items or objectives,
[2:36:36] column that we have based off
[2:36:39] of the San Miguel and Yere plan.
[2:36:47] So this was sent out last week
[2:36:52] and I guess I would like to hear any other recommendations
[2:36:56] to move forward with this or ideas for having this
[2:37:03] be more digestible in how we move forward.
[2:37:08] I think a lot of these objectives could be used, and some of these goals can be used
[2:37:14] towards the more specific BSEC goals,
[2:37:25] for sure.
[2:37:27] I agree with what you just said, Star, and I think maybe a way to prioritize this long
[2:37:31] list of objectives is to take the BSEC goals as the North Star and prioritize
[2:37:39] on this list based on our current goals?
[2:37:46] Right, Shackover?
[2:37:48] Thoughts?
[2:37:52] So, this is the first time I've seen this.
[2:37:57] I started those with another one out.
[2:38:04] So, this is a lot of information, too, I guess.
[2:38:10] I think what I'm looking for in a climate action plan
[2:38:14] I think we've got the categories, right, if you want to, you know, match the categories.
[2:38:23] So I think those are generally the categories that I mentioned.
[2:38:31] And then, what
[2:38:39] is TNA?
[2:38:42] So these are all from the current climate action plans.
[2:38:46] And when you say current climate action plans, are you talking about what eco action partners have done, or is there something else to do with that?
[2:38:56] The current UA and San Miguel County Climate Action Plan, which is the eco action partners product.
[2:39:04] Which we voted on.
[2:39:09] I don't know if I'm voting on it.
[2:39:13] So this is the access here are when they came to present the highlighted the action items
[2:39:24] that were on, that are in that plan and that are for local governments and specific
[2:39:31] to San Miguel County, things that we can do are action items.
[2:39:36] Yes, so the X's are out of that plan and they are in the first page here and so this
[2:39:46] is, this hasn't changed, this is all the same thing we've been presenting and they presented
[2:39:51] and that's in that current plan and then I put in here add to some things that we can
[2:40:00] We, upon my recommendation and what I've looked through and considering your goals, I'm added
[2:40:05] in here. And then each page has, you know, all the specifics in here. There's timeframes,
[2:40:14] one to three years. There's the greenhouse gas reduction potential. I included here a
[2:40:24] grants and funding because I get sent a lot of grant opportunities and it's hard to keep
[2:40:30] track of so having these with departments and identified into where it fits into here.
[2:40:39] I thought would be helpful and like I said this is a working document that's in Google
[2:40:44] Drive so it can be added to and worked with and everyone can have access to this.
[2:40:54] I make some time to go through this assignment and I like that you have to test the overall
[2:41:11] goals of energy, you know, the, I think there were five areas, five success areas that
[2:41:21] were presented in the Ego actions plan that also the tenetary end and the other kinds of
[2:41:27] and have a doctor, and if there's a priest standing, there there is.
[2:41:30] I'm not thinking to match our climate action plan
[2:41:34] with the current UCC goals.
[2:41:37] I know that you're trying to juggle those two things.
[2:41:42] I see them as different.
[2:41:44] I think what is on our UCC goals is to adopt a climate action plan.
[2:41:48] So this is one of our goals is to adopt a plan and start working on it.
[2:41:54] It doesn't have the tip within our current goals, so I don't know if that helps the sort
[2:42:01] of ongoing challenge, I think, of hearing trying to get this to match our current goals.
[2:42:09] This goes beyond our current goals, and this isn't goal within our current goals, is to adopt some action items
[2:42:17] that will start working out immediately and into the future.
[2:42:23] to, as part of the climate action policy.
[2:42:28] So, I would like to see this presented in a way that we can just simply go through
[2:42:37] each of the areas, like energy supply, have some recommendations on what the county can specifically do,
[2:42:50] And then have us sort of determine, you know, what the timeline is, how we can attach
[2:42:55] a budget to it, etc.
[2:43:02] So, still trying to understand.
[2:43:06] I would just need more time to look at this document.
[2:43:10] That is the idea to be more simplified.
[2:43:14] And one really important part of this is how we presented to the public.
[2:43:18] obviously they don't present this document to the public.
[2:43:20] But how do we present this to the public
[2:43:26] to get Biden?
[2:43:28] Because we will be using, at least at first,
[2:43:31] maybe small amounts of county money,
[2:43:33] but they didn't think that these are large amounts of county
[2:43:35] dollars, taxpayer dollars to be addressing these items.
[2:43:39] So maybe that's when we hire somebody who
[2:43:42] knows how to do for communication documents,
[2:43:57] So I don't know if the action items are listed here, active projects in key tasks,
[2:44:06] And then in the columns over here, you can actually do a drop down over here to support
[2:44:17] that and these are all action items that have...
[2:44:25] I'm just looking for action items that are relevant to the town.
[2:44:29] Well these are and so this is the lead department, building department.
[2:44:33] And these are all action items specific and what I said was the information on the side.
[2:44:42] You might need to make an informed decision.
[2:44:45] You might want to know at a regional level what Sam is doing or what the Senfals Energy
[2:44:52] Boyd is doing.
[2:44:53] So that's why I left that information in there because if you just, I thought it would
[2:44:58] Be
[2:45:00] Education also leave that in there. But the lead department, support department, those are our departments and so those are all, you know, who, who, this what a fact.
[2:45:19] Do you have any Commissioner Cooper? Have you had any? Because we've seen these for months, any, any changes or what problems with the objectives that have been noted in each area?
[2:45:35] I
[2:45:39] mean, we could take the time to
[2:45:42] to go through those if that would be helpful star to move this forward.
[2:45:47] I feel like we're getting a little circular here, and I'd love to move it forward.
[2:45:54] Yeah, that's what I was thinking that just having these broad objectives, so
[2:46:04] increased
[2:46:05] community engagement and continue to prioritize collaborative intersectional decision-making
[2:46:11] and action implementation.
[2:46:17] Okay, that to me would fall under every category when it gets on the category.
[2:46:23] So that falls to me under energy supply, under transportation, under housing, building.
[2:46:29] That's not really its own thing to me at least.
[2:46:34] Well, right, but as a larger objective, I'm considered greenhouse gas emissions as part of all decision making processes.
[2:46:41] So, I included in that policy and planning what's county-wide,
[2:46:55] and this is here again
[2:46:56] where I thought that on a department level here, I included that within our county that
[2:47:05] our decisions greenhouse gas emissions need to be in all decision-making and department-wide.
[2:47:12] So that's how I basically took that language and put it into which would go under that topic
[2:47:22] and that is integrate climate action planning into all departments.
[2:47:27] So that's essentially how you narrow that down into a county goal within under that objective.
[2:47:37] I wonder what makes sense start to just go ahead and go through from the main page through
[2:47:42] the main objective and then we could give it a read from the commissioners if any of
[2:47:48] those specifically need to change or if there are ones that they would like more
[2:47:54] information or additional ones.
[2:47:58] Does that feel like we could easily spend a lot of time in each one of these areas
[2:48:03] and I took your first one about the public outreach
[2:48:05] a little bit of information to Cooper is applying
[2:48:08] to all of these subsections.
[2:48:11] It was, but I don't want us to do rail here.
[2:48:17] Did you run through those at the board's amenable?
[2:48:21] Mm-hmm.
[2:48:22] Sure.
[2:48:27] I went through the first one.
[2:48:30] I would also say in the community engagement and policy,
[2:48:35] If you go to this page that a lot of our community outreach is creating this website, and
[2:48:48] I've listed that, you know, I feel like a lot of outreach is just acknowledging this
[2:48:53] plan and creating a website that has all the information on it.
[2:48:56] So that's how I kind of look at this big picture, too, as like community engagement and then
[2:49:01] the policy section of you are creating policy that helps drive us to move forward with
[2:49:09] things such as rule makings and these climate action meetings and community engagement
[2:49:18] climate action meetings that just happened in Durango and regionally so I'll just say
[2:49:24] that much on the community engagement and policy piece.
[2:49:28] Energy supply, increased percentage of electricity provided by renewable energy sources.
[2:49:37] Well, maybe I'll just throw out a comment here and I'll advice all of it.
[2:49:42] What I'm looking for in a kind of action-temp that I'll tell you is very specific and measurable
[2:49:51] So, kind of this general, you know, still, you know,
[2:50:00] For communication and kind of general stuff is, I'm not very comfortable with that.
[2:50:12] I really want to see us keeping a very specific action. I know that communication is very, very important and I do really need something on our website to actually show, maybe a dashboard to show our progress on each item. But I don't want it to happen.
[2:50:37] I understand that there are specific goals here, like here, you know, that we've completed
[2:50:44] this, here, we've got timelines here, one to five years, we've got our completion
[2:50:52] the action items here and then those will go to the departments where the directors will then integrate those into their work plans and be responsible for creating or completing those tasks.
[2:51:22] So we'll go to beneficial electrification of buildings.
[2:51:28] I guess if we could just go back to energy for a second.
[2:51:31] Okay.
[2:51:32] I think that the overall objective should be to reduce the amount of energy used and then to increase the percentage of electricity.
[2:51:43] I think it's a bit like a couple of resources, I think, personally.
[2:51:53] Per capita?
[2:51:54] Overall, question mark.
[2:51:57] Because that's been one of the challenges is we have both a growing population
[2:52:03] and a growing population that tends to use a lot more energy.
[2:52:09] And if there are ways that we can address that in our codes, et cetera,
[2:52:13] to look at production and not just encouraging more use, you know, it is, you know,
[2:52:24] it is only for resources to, you know, for resources to be brought to you.
[2:52:31] So add that as an objective?
[2:52:34] Yes.
[2:52:35] It would be my purpose, but it's the answer.
[2:52:39] So it's just reduced energy use and increased percentage?
[2:52:43] Yeah, I think just adding the words reduce energy use in the front of objective one
[2:52:50] covers both bases
[2:52:53] And it's all energy. This energy comes from gas too. It looks like you're only addressing
[2:52:57] electricity in here. Then again, I have not reviewed any of the details of this,
[2:53:01] so I'm probably missing something in all of the pages that you just see. Yeah, but
[2:53:05] its energy is not just electricity.
[2:53:16] Are you guys ready to move on?
[2:53:18] Uh-huh. Yep.
[2:53:21] Yes, I am.
[2:53:24] Can I see Emma and Jirana had her hand up for a moment?
[2:53:27] Oh.
[2:53:27] But it just went away.
[2:53:29] Now it's back up.
[2:53:29] Okay, go ahead Emma.
[2:53:31] I'll get you unmuted.
[2:53:40] Uh, thank you.
[2:53:41] Um, I just wanted to mention that
[2:53:43] I've got some energy supplies that are working out for her.
[2:53:46] And she was coming from the reduction of energy supplies.
[2:53:50] So that was very hard.
[2:53:52] Where are the kinds of energy supplies that are coming from?
[2:54:05] We couldn't quite hear that, okay, try it again, sorry.
[2:54:10] My bad.
[2:54:11] I wanted to mention not the energy supply infection but at first yellow objective.
[2:54:17] It's just looking at where energy is coming from.
[2:54:40] And so I think my input would be have two objectives, it's to separate those into two different things.
[2:54:49] Yeah, I don't even get that. Other energy supply? Yeah.
[2:55:07] Okay, and under building, energy section, beneficial electrification of buildings.
[2:55:19] So we're going
[2:55:19] to, I think we need to put like a verb in here, like either increase or support or both,
[2:55:27] something like that.
[2:55:31] And I, I'm having trouble with this kind of immediately jumping to
[2:55:35] beneficial communication. Right now, we're heavily dependent on coal. So this
[2:55:42] seems like a later step that I support very much in the future, but we're not
[2:55:50] there yet. So again, reduce or support buildings that are which we can
[2:56:05] And then support
[2:56:17] beneficial electric computation, as long as it's coming from a renewable resource
[2:56:24] and not coal.
[2:56:29] So we could switch those two objectives, put the second one first, which is continue
[2:56:33] to improve building energy codes, and then the second one could be as you suggested.
[2:56:39] support beneficial electrification of buildings with renewable resources or renewable energy, something to that effect.
[2:56:51] If the source is renewable, or once the source is more renewable.
[2:57:09] So, how are you with the second one?
[2:57:15] Second.
[2:57:16] Because you just said to, I'm just going to be in the first piece of order.
[2:57:21] And put, continue to improve building energy codes for new construction remodels and additions.
[2:57:26] That would be objective one.
[2:57:30] And then the second one would be the
[2:57:35] beneficial elect.
[2:57:36] Support beneficial electrification that's using renewable resources.
[2:57:44] And we could put some nuance in there later, you know, as the transition or as the percentage from tri-state.
[2:57:51] changes then we support this even more or something to that effect.
[2:58:02] Okay.
[2:58:04] Objective three increased natural gas efficiency makes
[2:58:10] sense.
[2:58:10] It's kind of wrapped into the new number one, but it doesn't hurt to have it called out
[2:58:15] specifically.
[2:58:17] And what does that mean exactly?
[2:58:21] If you look under, so these are the goals under those, continue rebate and incentive programs
[2:58:28] to replace older inefficient systems, encourage water tank insulation pipe wrap, provide technical
[2:58:33] assistance for natural gas, heating alternatives.
[2:58:40] So what's under the objectives is supporting other
[2:58:45] regional action plans to, or action
[2:58:48] items to support the objectives.
[2:58:50] Okay,
[2:58:54] so I
[2:59:06] think we're trying to get off of natural gas, so I think we should go back
[2:59:17] to the main number one goal of making buildings more energy efficient.
[2:59:26] I still support this objective, there's a whole lot of folks out there who won't be changing
[2:59:30] out natural gas, um, flances or who won't be doing a remodel. So I think the, uh, actions
[2:59:37] listed are still beneficial for reducing our, um, reducing our use and increasing efficiency.
[2:59:48] Okay. So the way this leads to me is we're trying to make natural gas more efficient, but
[2:59:52] you can't do that. So we, and we can't do that. So, uh, I guess this is, um,
[3:00:00] Increasing the efficiency of natural gas appliances? Is that what you're trying to get out of here?
[3:00:09] It's, yeah, yeah.
[3:00:20] Okay, the man we should just say we're in. Increase natural gas appliance efficiency. Did that cover it? That's me.
[3:00:33] I, again, like appliance efficiency. We don't, we don't have any control over this supply side of natural gas.
[3:00:41] So, how about, but I'm not sure if that's the industry necessarily.
[3:00:45] So, we're just trying to make our, is it just appliances that you use natural gas?
[3:00:52] Am I not in line with, is there other things that you use natural gas?
[3:00:56] What do we just say, increase the efficiency of natural gas appliances?
[3:01:02] That's what Lance just said.
[3:01:04] Yeah.
[3:01:06] Do we have order appliances?
[3:01:07] Thank you.
[3:01:08] We have not turned very long.
[3:01:09] Yeah.
[3:01:10] Yeah, because all of these actions do really apply to specific appliances, and I don't
[3:01:15] think there's any other uses.
[3:01:16] I mean, there's heaters, stoves, yeah, I think appliances covers it.
[3:01:27] And then the net forth is reduce energy consumption in rentals, apartments, and multi-family buildings.
[3:01:36] I think that would be covered, it may not necessarily need its own objective.
[3:01:40] of it's covered in our first one, but it can also be standalone just to sort of separate
[3:01:45] these things into more manageable chunks, perhaps.
[3:01:53] Yeah, and some of these, the county won't be able to do, yeah, won't be able to have
[3:01:59] action items attached to these,
[3:02:04] improve the energy efficiency performance of existing
[3:02:07] buildings,
[3:02:11] anticipate
[3:02:17] and mitigate likely expansion of air-conditioning use in new and existing
[3:02:21] buildings.
[3:02:22] Thanks.
[3:02:28] So just to start with the first, as I can hear, do we have a goal with where I'm trying
[3:02:33] to get with all this?
[3:02:35] Do we have a specific number of mine?
[3:02:37] Are we going to adopt?
[3:02:38] But the state is now using, are we?
[3:02:42] We have talked about using what the state goals were.
[3:02:47] We had talked about that previously.
[3:02:49] And that makes sense to me to align the state.
[3:02:52] I think the only challenge there is I think there's still use a baseline.
[3:02:58] that we don't have data for, so we just have to adjust that.
[3:03:08] And is that something that you agree with Commissioner Warranty?
[3:03:11] Just trying to make sure that we've got it in a way we've got it direction, at least two or three times, to, yeah, well, yes, go ahead.
[3:03:21] I think that's an easy place to find a baseline and a target.
[3:03:31] And then I guess I could look at each of these items a little more specifically if we're
[3:03:39] trying to get you, you know, I can't decide to go off top of my head, I believe it's
[3:03:46] 70% production by 2040, then are these objectives going to get this there?
[3:03:53] Because otherwise it just feels to me like, you know, we're just throwing more and more
[3:03:59] stuff out there and we're not actually really closer to the goal.
[3:04:07] And that's what I believe is so we're all on an action plan is this is our target.
[3:04:12] This is a number that we're trying to achieve.
[3:04:14] This is what we need to do to get there.
[3:04:16] And then what are the top items that the county can have the toll of?
[3:04:20] And without that sort of information, it's just hard for me to, I mean all this is nice.
[3:04:26] Is it actually going to get us anywhere?
[3:04:30] One of my questions is I mean I think it starts looked at all the climate action plans
[3:04:36] that you suggested you liked and I'm not sure that any of those have that very specific
[3:04:42] number and then I'd like to see that as well but I does have on this one the potential
[3:04:47] greenhouse gas reduction potential rating and I think perhaps if this is adopted we could
[3:04:54] dive into the ones with the highest potential first or you know just have that
[3:04:59] the balancing actor.
[3:05:00] What has the highest potential and is the most doable and then kind of create a different timeline or more precise timeline on those specific ones?
[3:05:13] Yeah, because the exactly what you're saying, that's why this is put in here. And then the time frame as well, if you want to work within that time frame of this climate action plan of using the reduction goals.
[3:05:30] But it seems like the last few meetings it sounded like those were changing so that's also a question
[3:05:37] I've continued to put in here
[3:05:40] If those numbers are still the same
[3:05:49] I mean have you have you seen an example of what you're after from another county. It's really specific because
[3:05:58] I haven't I haven't either. It's just a lot of fluff. It's a lot of background. They set a goal and
[3:06:06] There's nothing that's specific with action items, and I showed you all that spreadsheet
[3:06:15] of action items I think that came out of Picking County, because I have that whole spreadsheet
[3:06:23] that compared all the counties, but there are action items in there, in their basic action items.
[3:06:31] There's no timeframes, there's nothing.
[3:06:34] And some of those were separated out
[3:06:36] within the departments.
[3:06:40] But my recommendation and this entire, all this work
[3:06:46] that I've done thus far is based off of the start
[3:06:51] with the Snuffles Energy Board Plan.
[3:06:54] Taking Boulder, Picking County, Summit County,
[3:06:59] out county, I believe, and it was the five I presented in the second meeting and then
[3:07:07] integrated what I thought were important topics into some of these action items and to
[3:07:15] be honest, a lot of them cross over in multiple plans.
[3:07:18] And
[3:07:22] I looked at the state climate, the top five climate actions for greenhouse gas reductions, and we've hit them all here.
[3:07:37] It seems like we're stuck a little bit on the fact that we have so many options in front of us.
[3:07:45] And maybe what Chris said just a minute ago is a way that we could refine this list to our top priorities,
[3:07:53] which is where I feel like I'd be better able to focus and that's the combination of the most impact and the most doable from our county perspective.
[3:08:09] A lot of these things on the list are in progress with other organizations spearheading them and it's not clutter and it's useful to know about.
[3:08:21] But at some point, those exes need to get, I think, from my benefit, put into just one short list of what we as San Miguel County can do and the numbers associated with the impact for each of those actions we could then try to highlight, prioritize, discuss.
[3:08:42] us. This list feels so long for me that I'm having a hard time winnowing out what where
[3:08:50] the X's are on the far left side for the counties for our counties most impact. Does
[3:08:59] that make sense to anybody else or are you guys able to grasp all this?
[3:09:03] I think that's where I'm at too late, I just, I, um, yeah, I don't even know how we can actually get something done.
[3:09:13] Maybe the recommendations on what the top five items, the action items that we can take, the county can take.
[3:09:22] Also, helping with the regional items that are happening, if there's anything, we can do the help but that.
[3:09:30] And that's what I did on these individual.
[3:09:33] So this is all the objectives.
[3:09:36] And so I don't know how to reduce this even more,
[3:09:38] because I've taken the objectives,
[3:09:40] and now we're looking at each objective.
[3:09:43] I did what you all just said.
[3:09:45] Here is the lead department.
[3:09:47] These are the objectives.
[3:09:49] And this is continue Snuffles Energy Board
[3:09:52] quarterly meetings.
[3:09:53] That is Snuffles Energy Board leading.
[3:09:55] That is Lance and I attending.
[3:09:57] So these are still the-
[3:10:00] Action item, these individual spreadsheets are my recommendation of research and what specifically
[3:10:10] the county can do for our action plan. I didn't include all of that from the first page.
[3:10:20] Like I said here, the people that asked me not village solar rebate program because people
[3:10:26] said what are other people doing? So I left that information in there that that is something
[3:10:31] that another municipality is doing. And some of this stuff we just need to support
[3:10:37] and put on our website and supporting other and supporting the municipalities as they're
[3:10:44] doing that. And I think I mentioned this before is this information that we have on the website
[3:10:51] and what we're doing will help direct these questions that
[3:10:56] Carmen often will get and we don't have direction to where this is going
[3:11:01] or you know we just need to start with a plan you know and and so as far
[3:11:08] as the objectives that I've come up with I just picked those out and put
[3:11:13] those in there and then I put them by department so it's kind of
[3:11:20] I've already done, I already weeded through what isn't relevant necessarily to us.
[3:11:26] Thanks, sir, that helps.
[3:11:27] I think where I was getting hung up was we were looking at the objectives high level,
[3:11:33] but then we were also going through some of the underlying things that were listed underneath those objectives.
[3:11:41] And I wanted to flip screen to where we are now to see the San Miguel County
[3:11:46] underneath one of the six overarching objectives and so obviously I haven't
[3:11:56] spent enough time with this either to really be able to snapshot it in my head
[3:12:01] and as you walk me through it, your knowledge of it isn't as better than mine
[3:12:08] and I'm not able to make the jump back and forth from page one and the next tab
[3:12:14] that you're saying here are the things that Miguel County can do.
[3:12:19] With that understanding, I feel like I may just need a little more time to do my homework,
[3:12:28] my frankly.
[3:12:29] It doesn't feel like I'm very effective in this conversation because I haven't had
[3:12:34] a chance to tab back and forth and make intelligent comments, I'm sorry, but didn't get that
[3:12:43] work done. I think I have an idea again I'll help and I'll do a little more
[3:12:47] specific and do it right away because I think one of the things like under
[3:12:52] building energy we have the objective and then have a whole lot of things that
[3:12:55] are building and then you have the information so one is just to clear up put
[3:12:59] like all the information at the bottom and have the stuff that's specific to
[3:13:02] departments at the at the top and then maybe we can I can work on even color
[3:13:09] are coding it with the higher greenhouse gas reduction
[3:13:13] potential might be something that we use to wait it
[3:13:18] in the next presentation of this or another,
[3:13:20] just another version of it.
[3:13:22] So it says, like, weighted, GHD weighted
[3:13:24] or something to that effect.
[3:13:26] Yeah, I can just do this spreadsheet to bring up
[3:13:29] all the fours on the top down.
[3:13:34] And I can indent the information for you
[3:13:37] because I still think that needs to come under
[3:13:39] because I don't think you'll be able to follow top
[3:13:42] to bottom going down to look at the information at the bottom.
[3:13:45] So I can just indent it.
[3:13:47] I can take it out of the couple versions
[3:13:51] is probably going to be helpful.
[3:13:53] One that has the information right with the item,
[3:13:57] but also one that is much more concise.
[3:13:59] So I'll help work on that.
[3:14:04] I guess I need the other input so far.
[3:14:09] Because I know we have another item to discuss and you guys have to get off it
[3:14:13] to
[3:14:14] 230 to 30 okay
[3:14:18] Yeah, I agree with commissioner. I just I'm this is a person. I've seen this document
[3:14:24] Honestly just overwhelmed by it and so I
[3:14:28] Would like to face this on
[3:14:30] This is the county goal to produce free as cash is by 70% by the year 2040 and this is how
[3:14:39] And I don't know if this is all part of it.
[3:14:42] I would request one thing, if you have seen one that you like that does that, if you
[3:14:49] could share that, that would be great, because I have not, you know, I've seen-
[3:14:52] We have seen it in a really quick call of the counties, and so far, ten of them have
[3:14:56] and it's me that they all adopted, very successful.
[3:14:59] So.
[3:15:08] I would really appreciate if you want to share that with us, because I think we might have more time. Some of us might have more time than you do, because we did look at the ones that you'd suggested before that said they had very specific things, and it didn't seem like that translates to it.
[3:15:29] what you're asking for, which is that timeline and that very specific data driven reduction,
[3:15:35] which I agree, that would be the ultimate goal for me, is that we have a timeline and
[3:15:40] we know how to get there and we know that this action is going to help us get 10% of the
[3:15:46] way.
[3:15:46] But I have not seen that in any of those, the ones that were suggested previously.
[3:15:52] So if you don't mind just sharing which counties have replied, I'm happy to look into that
[3:15:57] more.
[3:15:58] I'm listening to the town council meeting yesterday for most of the day and one of the things
[3:16:04] that came up was their board discussed and decided to hire a climate planner or a climate
[3:16:11] action specialist.
[3:16:13] And it may be that if we're trying to do something that is cutting edge in the sense, if we don't
[3:16:20] get that response that we're all looking for, this may be more than stock and take on
[3:16:27] by herself, and I'm not sure if I'm suggesting another position full-time or part-time, but
[3:16:33] Starscott are hands full with a lot of other things as well, and this is critical for
[3:16:38] us to do it well and do it right, and to expect start to be an expert in all areas of not
[3:16:48] only climate action planning, but also natural resources, preservation, and be able to
[3:16:55] to do everything well, maybe not possible.
[3:16:59] I kind of support that idea.
[3:17:00] I'd love to find out what the town, who the town's looking,
[3:17:03] what they're looking for, and who they've hired.
[3:17:06] Because I do think it's that really specific data
[3:17:09] that it seems like Commissioner Cooper's wanting
[3:17:11] that I want, that I think we all want.
[3:17:13] You know, the little in your effort, Starr, I'm just,
[3:17:16] no, it's just realizing that this is huge.
[3:17:19] And I have heard from citizens are just like basically
[3:17:23] saying the same thing.
[3:17:23] there's no real target, there's no real actions, you know, why can't we just require solar
[3:17:31] on every new construction. I didn't answer that, but you know those kinds of very specific
[3:17:37] things might be very useful and if we could piggyback on a fee that's already out there
[3:17:44] or at least understand what the town of Tayrida specifically going after, I think that would
[3:17:49] be very helpful. Let me do a little research into that and I'll share that with with
[3:17:57] Star and with Mike and with the rest of the board. Great.
[3:18:01] I think it's super helpful, Star. You've done this inventory and you've developed this
[3:18:05] really comprehensive list and now it just feels familiar. I think it takes somebody who does
[3:18:09] this professionally to help come up with a plan to help recommend a plan for us that
[3:18:16] will actually get stuff done.
[3:18:18] And I know that Star could do that.
[3:18:21] I don't want this to sound like we don't trust you.
[3:18:25] It's more that I know how many other things you're also
[3:18:28] responsible for.
[3:18:31] And if we can find someone to help you.
[3:18:35] Well, frankly, I've seen some of the professional outcomes.
[3:18:42] And they're fluff.
[3:18:44] Most of what I've seen is really general, like you've seen, I have not come across anything that's specifically what we're looking for, which is, again, why I would be happy to look and spend the time because I have it on the other county specific programs.
[3:19:02] Well, you take that part.
[3:19:05] Yeah, let's divide and conquer a little bit.
[3:19:08] See what we learn and come back.
[3:19:09] And I know that the Snuffles Energy Board has also looked at numerous plans.
[3:19:14] Come up with these action items.
[3:19:18] And can you share proof?
[3:19:19] I don't know when you said that you reached out.
[3:19:21] That they have goals.
[3:19:22] Are you saying that they have the goal of 70% reduction?
[3:19:27] and that goal are you saying specific goals?
[3:19:32] Because they've seen specific goals from counties,
[3:19:35] but they're not prioritized,
[3:19:39] they're not in this form, they're fluff,
[3:19:42] they're just laid out there based off of departments
[3:19:45] like picking counties was probably one of the more,
[3:19:49] they had a spreadsheet with a department
[3:19:54] and who was doing what.
[3:19:55] And it wasn't on, they didn't even have the greenhouse gas reduction.
[3:20:02] And I'm not even sure they had a timeline with Darzy there. I'd have to go back and look. But those bigger plans are just, I think that they just create a big picture for the departments to then take on. And I'll just be honest, like that's something else to consider is how much time when that's why I put this in here. When I'm looking, you know, I put in
[3:20:29] individual means, and I put planning in here, I put open space and trails.
[3:20:34] How much time do they have, and where are they going to prioritize that?
[3:20:38] I think it's not necessarily your, that prioritization comes into the departments to make those decisions.
[3:20:47] So
[3:20:49] that also is helpful.
[3:20:52] I think we have a plan forward to the next steps.
[3:20:55] At least for commission wearing.
[3:20:57] We've got a couple of baby steps to see what we get.
[3:20:59] Yeah.
[3:21:00] In the meantime.
[3:21:01] So it's going to start quickly if I'm wrong.
[3:21:04] But
[3:21:06] we've got the word kind of commissioners goals in general.
[3:21:11] We just don't have to say you're not mine.
[3:21:14] We have to.
[3:21:14] Is that better?
[3:21:16] Yeah.
[3:21:16] Okay.
[3:21:17] We have the word of kind of commissioners goals in general.
[3:21:19] We just don't have a lot of the specifics.
[3:21:22] And that's where I think staff is getting sort of bogged down
[3:21:25] with how to address all the stuff that we get thrown at us because we're struggling
[3:21:31] at least for me like you know I was talking to the star about like the 1500 you know rulemaking
[3:21:37] emails that we get not everything is a priority but how can we help ourselves to be able to
[3:21:42] prioritize them based off of you know we've got our general goals but we don't have anything more
[3:21:48] specific and so getting to this a little bit more detailed sooner rather than later I think
[3:21:54] would help staff be able to sort out what we bring to you or what we filter out on your
[3:22:00] behalf because you know a lot of times we're filtering stuff out and then all of a sudden
[3:22:04] we find out last minute oh no no we really wanted to do that or we're bringing you stuff
[3:22:10] that we think is what you want but you don't so we're just trying to meet your needs in
[3:22:18] the best way possible and I think stars put an awful lot of work on trying to put this
[3:22:22] in writing and it has been shared with everybody and so if we want to try to keep this task
[3:22:29] going and moving forward is there is there another good time to put this on an agenda
[3:22:34] and then knowing that you know everybody will have an opportunity to really look at it
[3:22:40] and spend a little bit more time on how it can be sort of start to be sort of funneled
[3:22:47] down into and distilled into what we really need because again I think start started out
[3:22:51] that, you know, staff is getting phone calls on stuff and we just aren't too sure where
[3:22:57] to go with it all of the time, mostly the time we can, but there are some things that we
[3:23:01] just don't.
[3:23:02] So it would be, I would, I could find it helpful when staff does get calls.
[3:23:06] I don't know, there's a way to do it, but just put that in, it's one of our little lists.
[3:23:10] Oh, we had our phone call today about EV and hotel just so that we kind of have this ongoing
[3:23:16] knowledge. I think realistically, late August, early September for an adoption that would
[3:23:25] give us because Commissioner Cooper has gone July for the most part, we could have an
[3:23:29] updated maybe condensed version to her 6.0 or whatever to have out before then. So if there's
[3:23:38] any spare time when she's gone, she could take a look at it. But that would be my thought
[3:23:44] is that if we just have it out there that we'll get this done in September that
[3:23:51] seems like a realistic timeline from my perspective.
[3:23:57] Other commissioners?
[3:23:58] That sounds good to me. I would agree with that too. I just I mean I guess I'll
[3:24:06] just sort of close that one more time to see if one on the same page.
[3:24:13] What I would
[3:24:13] a very specific goal of producing greenhouse gases, specific number by a specific date,
[3:24:30] or a percentage by a specific date, and then that's the goal, and then the objectives
[3:24:39] are lined up to very specifically meet that full sort of the tier one objectives
[3:24:45] that we've come up with that are designed up to design to very specifically meet that full the
[3:24:50] last event, the location, the website, all that those are just all supportive items those aren't really objectives to meet those are
[3:25:00] What we do to kind of support our public communication outreach, but I would want to see our objectives. There is a specific in reference how in one amount of time, they're going to help us meet the goal of, you know, I'm using an example so I can explain myself, produce things 70% by the year 24. That's just an example that I'm using because I heard this.
[3:25:28] So this is Boulder County here that I had pulled off, and I had actually put this in for you all, I'm trying to think where it is, I think it's this one.
[3:25:43] And I really appreciate you using Boulder County, and that's something that we certainly kind of spot higher to, but we can never get to the level of Boulder County.
[3:25:52] They have an entire department that works on this stuff.
[3:25:55] I think, you know, using that is a kind of tune out.
[3:25:59] Honestly, when I give you bipolar counties examples,
[3:26:01] because that's not really achievable for me.
[3:26:04] Right.
[3:26:05] I was told to look at that more realistic examples.
[3:26:08] Right.
[3:26:08] I was told to look at Boulder County.
[3:26:10] But what I'm saying is you can fill in the blank.
[3:26:13] That's what I'm saying right there.
[3:26:15] That's, and I've asked that in, I think, two of these pages
[3:26:18] for the B.O.C.C. to come to an agreement on that and you can take out their numbers and put in your own numbers.
[3:26:27] Right, so that's a statewide goal. So we could use that word goal.
[3:26:32] Or we could, I mean we should probably start using the statewide goal, so that's the first one out there.
[3:26:38] I'm getting route counties, guys and counties, pick and counties, some eight counties all at home,
[3:26:55] I have those two. I have those. I presented those in the last one, what each county was going towards. So I think you all need. Let's start there. Let's start with the state. I think next week, I mean, because I have that information already from other meetings, what everyone else is doing.
[3:27:14] Would that be reasonable and in the next week we're an egg nurse, so yeah, but we could
[3:27:21] get the info out as soon as, yeah, we can put that together.
[3:27:24] I think also, you know, we've been talking about this for a long time and I recognize the
[3:27:28] frustration around just not making progress every time I talk about it, but this is big
[3:27:35] and this is for the future and I think we need to take our time to do this right instead
[3:27:38] of just trying to check the box that we've done something and put another plan out there
[3:27:42] that it's not achievable, or that it doesn't have any, you know, federal targets on it.
[3:27:46] So let's just take the time to do this right.
[3:27:48] I mean, I would say that we wait, and so August has to start working on this, but yeah.
[3:27:57] We just don't want to run into the same thing that we have today, where you don't have time
[3:28:02] to review the materials before we discuss them.
[3:28:05] So I think if we can get them out earlier, at least the basic info that we've talked about
[3:28:10] today.
[3:28:10] And then again, have a goal of having something adoptable by sometime in September, I think that's realistic.
[3:28:18] Do you want to adopt the action items?
[3:28:21] Or do you think you can get to this number?
[3:28:24] Which honestly, I think will help us get to the action items.
[3:28:27] I think you need the number.
[3:28:28] Okay.
[3:28:29] To support, because the actions are supported.
[3:28:33] So the actions, yeah, we'll have to have, you know, a measurable target timeline, etc.
[3:28:50] So, I think we're good on the mission and we look at the state goal and start with that
[3:28:59] for the draft goal of ours together and then we'll declare on that.
[3:29:07] Sounds good.
[3:29:07] Okay, Mr. Wary, good with that.
[3:29:10] Sure, okay.
[3:29:12] Could I make one great comment, Mr. Holstrom?
[3:29:15] Yes, you may.
[3:29:17] Thank you.
[3:29:18] So to any point, this document serves really two functions.
[3:29:23] One is to guide us on a progress and allow us to see
[3:29:27] where we're selling or pulling behind
[3:29:31] as we move towards achieving a specific progress.
[3:29:35] are a specific action. But it's also going to be really important for staff as we
[3:29:44] develop our 2023 work plans and that's a later discussion that we'll have today regarding
[3:29:51] the budget. If there are specific actions that we want them to take, this document is going
[3:29:59] That's it now.
[3:30:00] Public understand what the county is trying to do, but for internal staff to help them as they develop their work plan. So the other point is that this is, I imagine going to be a living document. This isn't going to be a one-time. This is going to be something that we'll revisit. I would imagine annually an update as technology changes as circumstances change. So I appreciate that we want to clarify
[3:30:30] and simplify it for the public side on the other side of it, though, where Star has identified
[3:30:37] these specific actions that each of the departments can take.
[3:30:42] I think that part in not just for pressuring you, but if we want them to be budgeting
[3:30:48] for things and considering that and how they're going to implement that in their next year
[3:30:53] work plan, that's information we'll want to try and get to them by the beginning of September
[3:30:59] the latest. So I think we can do that. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Start for this. This looks
[3:31:08] incredible and I can see the immense amount of research and thought he put into it.
[3:31:16] Great. With that, we'll move on to discussion of EV station readiness plan and feasibility study.
[3:31:22] I'm
[3:31:32] not sharing any more of it.
[3:31:55] So, can we share where I attended a meeting with Ego Action
[3:32:01] Partners, which we have here and can wield in Zander here who is an
[3:32:08] ami and student and moving forward with an EV readiness plan.
[3:32:16] We met last week to discuss a partnership between San Miguel County Ego Action Partners
[3:32:23] and Stunnels Energy Board to develop a region-wide EV readiness plan for San Miguel County
[3:32:29] and Eurea County region.
[3:32:32] This is a regional plan that identifies regional climate action plan that was identified
[3:32:40] in the regional climate action plan that I just went over in one of the
[3:32:45] pages. It's something we've discussed before and I have also reviewed
[3:32:51] other readiness plans. When Commissioner Waring and I met with a group we
[3:33:00] discussed specific items in the last few meetings that we've discussed
[3:33:06] over what a readiness plan looks like for the county and Commissioner
[3:33:10] Cooper mentioned it earlier, just having really specific items in this plan, and I adjust
[3:33:20] that we need a plan that's going to look at cost, help us budgets, and as we've mentioned
[3:33:30] with a climate action plan before as well, not have a lot of fluff, but have something that's
[3:33:35] use a book document and we also discussed just how important it is to look at regionally
[3:33:44] because looking at EV stations, looking at it's hard, I mean we just got a call yesterday
[3:33:53] from someone you know who would like to install one and so this is happening quickly there's
[3:33:58] money out there right now and so people are taking advantage of it and there's probably
[3:34:05] the entities looking at installing EVs into our county. We need to be in a group discussion
[3:34:13] about this and not side road to understand where the gaps are and to understand if we need
[3:34:23] to intervene and jump in. And so that's really the specific information that we're looking
[3:34:27] for.
[3:34:30] Did you have anything you wanted to add to that?
[3:34:36] Yeah, there's a specific financial contribution that the county would be requested to put in
[3:34:43] in order to progress off, and I'll ask him to refresh me of that number. I believe it was
[3:34:48] $2,500.
[3:34:50] but I support everything that you just said about the importance of a regional planning
[3:34:59] group.
[3:35:00] So that we aren't duplicating efforts and so that we are aware of what other entities and other private individuals are doing. And time is of the essence here exactly right start. There's money available now. And we want to be able to produce a plan that we can then start making happen and have places to plug in vehicles in the right places.
[3:35:27] She and I presented this, not sure I think it was in February or March and she is no longer
[3:35:37] going to be working with us on this project and as Commissioner, when I just mentioned
[3:35:46] and my workload, and so therefore this readiness plan would really be spearheaded.
[3:35:55] The grant writing, all the research would be conducted by equal action partners, and
[3:36:02] Zander here, and the suggested funding scenario for this grant would be a third Colorado Energy
[3:36:12] emergency office at the Doha and at the local funding match, which in turn for the county
[3:36:19] would be $2,500.
[3:36:23] And we would be asked to be the fiscal agent for the grant funding application and contract
[3:36:31] with the go-action partners and as required, the party contractor to develop the plan.
[3:36:43] Go ahead.
[3:36:43] Okay, one question for Zander maybe, when do you foresee having, assuming this all happens,
[3:36:50] when would you foresee being able to present a completed plan?
[3:36:55] Yes.
[3:36:56] Absolutely.
[3:36:57] Good question.
[3:36:59] So in the program that I've ended Western Colorado, I just completed the first year, so hopefully
[3:37:08] within nine to twelve months.
[3:37:09] That's kind of the ideal timeframe.
[3:37:17] Thank you.
[3:37:18] Kim, did you want to add to that?
[3:37:20] I was just going to say that yeah, we just finished our first
[3:37:23] plan with the MEM student and the project completion date
[3:37:27] is at the end of April.
[3:37:29] The grant funding timeline is a year,
[3:37:32] like a fiscal year, with both DOLA and the CEO.
[3:37:37] So, and after the end of June, that scenario
[3:37:41] of how the funding is planned for from the Colorado Energy Office changes.
[3:37:45] It changes into a specific timeline of a competitive grant cycle.
[3:37:51] So we, versus right now, it's available on a first come, first serve basis.
[3:37:55] So we are working to jump on this opportunity now so that Zander has an opportunity to finish
[3:38:00] the project before it's done line, as well as we can take advantage of the funding that's
[3:38:05] available right now and have a much more detailed, more expanded scope of project of a plan
[3:38:10] than if that funding wasn't available.
[3:38:15] Any other questions?
[3:38:17] I support as well.
[3:38:19] Go ahead, Commissioner Cooper.
[3:38:24] I was just going to ask for a specific proposal in writing to know what is in this plan.
[3:38:31] or you were suggesting that we have to contribute $2,500 in order to figure out what's in the plan.
[3:38:39] So plan to plan? Or is this $2,500 for the actual plan? And if it is, I'd like to see a proposal for the plan.
[3:38:47] Will it? Is this working? Can you hear Kim? Okay. Okay, try the other mic.
[3:38:57] Is that better? Yeah. Okay.
[3:39:01] Okay. So, I say, the standard will develop the actual, okay, so the standard?
[3:39:07] No, I can't do it at all now.
[3:39:10] Let's try this.
[3:39:15] Is that better?
[3:39:17] Hillary, is that better?
[3:39:19] Yeah.
[3:39:19] Okay. So, the grant application and the funding that we will be receiving goes toward actual development of the plan.
[3:39:29] and that plan will include detailed action items, including an implementation scenario out of it.
[3:39:36] So we'll meet what the county has requested so far in our staff meetings and we'll continue to work with staff
[3:39:42] and commissioners as well, as needed.
[3:39:45] Okay, could we see that in writing?
[3:39:47] I just wanted to ask you a plan.
[3:39:49] So we are at the moment developing the draft language
[3:39:56] that would go into San Miguel counties.
[3:40:00] Application for the funding, because, again, San Miguel County would be the fiscal agent for both the C.E.L. and Dola grants. So we're developing that language and we'll bring that back in front of you, the specific language of that application, which will include the scope of work and what will be in the plan. We'll come in the next week or two so that we can meet the deadline before the end of June. So the deadline for submission is the 30th or the first 30th. So our meeting next week is in
[3:40:30] Agna, but as much as we can get before then to take a look at that, I mean, I'm for it.
[3:40:40] I don't know that I want to need to see the complete plan before committing to 2,500 for
[3:40:48] the grant request, the match, it's a match, so it's not a $2,500 right now, it's a $2,500
[3:40:55] commitment.
[3:40:57] Correct.
[3:40:57] should the grant be received correct and I'm fine with moving ahead with that
[3:41:02] I agree with the idea that we can commit 2500 I also like Hillary's desire
[3:41:12] for seeing the scope of work on paper I believe we have a meeting at 29th yes we
[3:41:19] do so if
[3:41:22] it is a work session we could make it special if we had to however
[3:41:30] However, if you could get us that written information within a week, that would give us a chance
[3:41:40] to read it.
[3:41:41] And if there were any questions or red flags, at least we'd have a chance to go back
[3:41:45] and forth and talk about that.
[3:41:48] That does beg the question of whether we vote today without that paper in front of us or
[3:41:54] how we get to the question.
[3:41:56] So next week if we had materials that we can take a look at, even though we're an
[3:42:00] ignore we could still say yes, if or no to the to being a fiscal agent and to
[3:42:07] the $2,500. That makes sense to me. I'd like to beat this deadline and not be up
[3:42:12] against it with 24 hour turnaround. Commissioner Cooper, you think that's on that?
[3:42:18] Yeah, I'm fine with that.
[3:42:19] I just want to, you know, you know, specifically
[3:42:21] from the client.
[3:42:23] But it's not something that I said.
[3:42:24] You really should feel it.
[3:42:26] Wait, we know what?
[3:42:27] Fluff.
[3:42:28] No.
[3:42:29] And we definitely appreciate and understand that
[3:42:31] and just wanted to come in front of you first
[3:42:32] to kind of get the continued approval to move forward.
[3:42:36] I think you're getting a willingness to move forward
[3:42:38] at a very rapid pace.
[3:42:39] Perfect.
[3:42:40] Our submission deadline for the packet
[3:42:42] for the Agnir meeting is Monday mid-day
[3:42:46] of next week.
[3:42:57] I would just like to add to that, what they're providing is information
[3:43:05] that we've given them. That can show wearing and I and the in shamans, the research that
[3:43:19] information based off of, this is what tie-rights done at this point and looking at, what they're providing us is the feedback and information we've given them essentially.
[3:43:35] So, just so everyone was aware of that.
[3:43:44] If I can just add, it's exciting because this is one of the big items in the Climate Action Plan for the region to move forward on.
[3:43:50] And so while we're still on the stage of doing outreach across the region and presenting
[3:43:55] to all the regional governments on that climate action plan to then get input to finalize
[3:43:59] it.
[3:44:00] But also excited to be moving forward with actions like this and making things happen.
[3:44:04] So, great.
[3:44:06] Thank you.
[3:44:06] I want to add that it's great and fortunate that Zander has appeared and has the capability
[3:44:13] of the interest and is with us to push this project forward.
[3:44:17] Thank you.
[3:44:18] And look forward to working with you.
[3:44:19] I'm going to be more excited. I also have all the resources from Western Colorado University as well so just to add that.
[3:44:28] If you can hear me.
[3:44:31] Okay.
[3:44:33] Do we need anything else from this for today?
[3:44:36] I think we're good.
[3:44:39] Great. Thanks, folks.
[3:44:40] Thank you.
[3:44:42] Starting with anything else for us today?
[3:44:44] That's all I have to say.
[3:44:45] Okay.
[3:44:46] Thanks, Star.
[3:44:46] We have a very good to keep rolling.
[3:44:51] Roll on.
[3:44:53] Mike, do you want to address the two from this morning before?
[3:44:58] It's really a few comments.
[3:45:00] Let's go. So, yes, don't lose track of those. So, the first one was an update on a discussion of the budget process for 2023. Yes, thank you. So, speaking with the commissioners, I've gained some additional clarity about what items you may be interested in changing or addressing for the next year budget. I thought I would just do a super brief recap of our existing process.
[3:45:29] us and just to remind you and the public what that process is and then I have a suggestion
[3:45:37] from the request or comments that I heard from the board.
[3:45:43] So this past year as we all remember we transitioned to a new budgeting software in finance and
[3:45:51] And that created some unexpected delays in getting that
[3:45:56] back-to-work communication between the board and administration.
[3:46:01] But throughout the year, once we have a budget passed,
[3:46:05] we monitor those budgets between finance, myself,
[3:46:10] and then the individual department heads and intellectuals.
[3:46:13] When we get to a monthly basis, when we get to the half-year point,
[3:46:18] which June is closed out about mid-July we do in word depth review and then
[3:46:27] in the past up to another survey an initial budget survey two department
[3:46:32] heads and elected officials and we focused starting in 2020 on some
[3:46:38] four main areas, or three main areas of customer feedback, employee development and
[3:46:46] efficiencies and technologies that could make us more efficient and
[3:46:54] wise with our tax dollars. So that July survey that initially goes out
[3:47:00] talks about what processes or efficiencies those departments and offices
[3:47:06] have tried this past year as well as those that they have come to play for the future.
[3:47:12] What policies they have changed or procedures they have changed.
[3:47:18] The level of teamwork both in their own office or department and with other county offices
[3:47:24] and departments.
[3:47:26] The areas that they perceive that they could save funds in or ideas that they have to increase
[3:47:33] revenue.
[3:47:34] What professional development they are doing currently and what they might be proposing
[3:47:40] for the next year. Any changes in their service delivery, any grants that they are going
[3:47:47] to be going for, or grants that they may have currently that will need to be extended
[3:47:53] and re-budgeted for the coming year. Their capital needs, their software needs, their staffing
[3:48:00] changes, and any upcoming requirements, as well as their non-traditional benefits. This
[3:48:06] This is more of a budget focused survey, although there is every year I do an employee satisfaction
[3:48:14] survey, which I don't want the two to be confused because they're very different things, different
[3:48:20] surveys with different purposes.
[3:48:23] Around the end of August, we have received our preliminary evaluation from the assessor,
[3:48:30] which helps us understand what our property tax revenue which is our greatest
[3:48:35] source of revenue might look like for the coming year. This past year I sent out
[3:48:41] after to reconvert on that the two year goals that the commissioners set in
[3:48:46] 2021 were still going to be holding true and we then met about those. We had
[3:48:52] confirmation on those goals. I sent them up to each department and office and
[3:48:58] And then ask them how they could incorporate pieces of those in their upcoming year work
[3:49:04] plans.
[3:49:05] And this is the area where I think we may want to put a pain in this part of the discussion
[3:49:12] because this is where I'm going to come back to.
[3:49:14] Then in September, finance and myself, meet with all departments and offices, we review
[3:49:22] their surveys, their work plans, as well as any requests they have. We then look at their historic
[3:49:31] spending averages as well as what they're proposing in their work plans, their staffing, and after
[3:49:38] we have some basis of how much revenue we're going to have, we suggest budgetary amounts. That's
[3:49:44] something that has changed since 2019, where the departments and offices were sent their last year
[3:49:51] budget and ask to fill in how much they would like or how much they think they'll
[3:49:56] I mean, we did that to try and reduce.
[3:50:00] Essentially, what I would consider fluff in some parts of the budget, although the county and the commissioners have budgetary control over departments and offices, where that control becomes really difficult is when there might be a large amount budgeted in one area or one line item within a budget. That then is transferred by that elected official into another board department head into another area of their budget. And essentially, you can control the large amount
[3:50:30] positive that individual line line of control is something that concerns me and something
[3:50:36] where I saw funds that have been budgeted in one area where actually they spent in
[3:50:40] a different area. To address that, that is why Remonet and I look at their historic spending
[3:50:47] and their upcoming needs and then recommend a budget amount for them.
[3:50:54] We then, oh, along with that in September, we're forecasting their remaining year expenses
[3:51:03] and revenues, and then we're getting into forecasting what the ending fund balance
[3:51:09] is to ensure that we're going to have an adequate fund balance if we were to honor the new
[3:51:17] request for the coming year.
[3:51:19] We then have an additional meeting session with us,
[3:51:23] Department heads and elected officials after they've received what we're
[3:51:27] suggesting for their budget, where they can then discuss that with us
[3:51:31] and we can make modifications based off of additional information that they
[3:51:37] present to us. All that goes into the creation of the October 15th steps,
[3:51:42] that's totally required preliminary budget
[3:51:45] into the commissioners for review.
[3:51:48] Tip lay following that meeting,
[3:51:50] we do a deeper dive into what next year programs, projects
[3:51:56] are going to happen with the board.
[3:51:59] And then after that meeting,
[3:52:02] we continue to update the year and remaining year and revenues
[3:52:08] and expenses.
[3:52:09] this last year sales tax ended up increasing much higher than we had expected at the end of the year which allowed us to make some last minute adjustments.
[3:52:19] We have also then, at the beginning of December, received our final valuation from the county assessor.
[3:52:25] Luckily, we have not seen a dramatic change between the preliminary and the final, although that is possible.
[3:52:33] and we revise again. Following that we create the budget message and then he goes to the board for final adoption by the December 15 steps to early steps to re-getting.
[3:52:47] What I heard from the board when we discussed budgets previously is a greater desire to interact with the department heads and elected officials
[3:52:59] before during the creation of the budget.
[3:53:02] And I wanted to just verify that that is the case.
[3:53:05] And if that is the case, then I wonder if it makes sense.
[3:53:09] After I have sent out the survey of how their work plans
[3:53:13] are going to accomplish their not only their fetch toward duties
[3:53:18] because, as we all know, when Ridge are elected offices
[3:53:21] and several others have very clear fetch toward guidance
[3:53:24] of what they have to deliver to the citizens.
[3:53:28] But then if that might be the opportunity
[3:53:31] when they're coming to talk about
[3:53:34] how they're going to incorporate the commissioners
[3:53:36] and the county's goals into their upcoming year work plans
[3:53:40] to have a work session with those department heads
[3:53:43] and elected officials to understand
[3:53:45] how they're going to incorporate those goals moving forward.
[3:53:49] So one in there, embedded in there,
[3:53:51] as I sometimes do, my apologies, is a question of the type of interaction that you would like to have with the department heads and elected officials.
[3:54:02] And if so, it will make sense to look at that August and early September timeline to have those meetings.
[3:54:11] Okay, so input?
[3:54:17] Yes, I think that would be useful to have those meetings.
[3:54:19] Commissioner Cooper?
[3:54:20] Yes
[3:54:24] I feel useful to have those meetings and I have two questions one is what's the status of a class and
[3:54:33] how I'm studying? Class and study is moving forward on its original timeline with our final
[3:54:43] deliverable, expected in September.
[3:54:48] Yes, I'm a little bit more there because we do expect
[3:54:52] after seeing what happened to tell your right amount villages come study
[3:54:56] last year that there's likely to be an increased
[3:54:59] Bye.
[3:55:00] Thank you very much, Terry. Impact to the county if we want to take those recommendations. And we may end up recommending a phase approached where we look at those that are the most out of whack compared to our comparable communities that were benchmarking against. And then implement remaining ones in future years. There's no requirement that we have to implement everything all at once.
[3:55:27] But we do expect that it is going to result as it did.
[3:55:30] We're talking about billage with an increase of employee salaries and overall wage costs.
[3:55:37] Okay, so I'm just a little bit curious on the timing that I have because as much as I would like to do.
[3:55:46] I agree with the approach to just kind of starting our report session, which apparently has been elected officials from the start point of the B.S.C.
[3:55:56] to see those, I, again, think your picture.
[3:56:00] What is our memory forecast for next year?
[3:56:03] What is the class and hop study you're going to produce for us?
[3:56:08] Because I would like to hear from the front heads
[3:56:12] and the length of the visuals, not
[3:56:14] what their hands on in terms of digital funding
[3:56:16] for their departments.
[3:56:19] So because I guess it doesn't have me
[3:56:20] until September that timing is a little bit tricky.
[3:56:27] But we will have the revenue forecast before that.
[3:56:32] We'll have revenue forecast by the end of August.
[3:56:37] Shortly thereafter, once we receive our preliminary evaluation.
[3:56:43] So we may not have that either if we plan those work sessions in August.
[3:56:48] I think if we were meeting in August, the question would be,
[3:56:51] how are you incorporating these goals into your next year work planning?
[3:56:55] work so then here's how much money we can give you. They can make those requests and
[3:57:01] then if this were, you know, if we're looking at August 24th work session and then our
[3:57:07] first work session in September, it would put us close to, we could have those, if you
[3:57:15] want me to incorporate this program to address this goal, I would need X amount. We could have
[3:57:21] that conversation and then we'll know, you know, a week or two later, how much of we can
[3:57:27] imagine them and say, okay, well, we can honor that one or actually we'll have to only honor
[3:57:33] partial, so we're just knowing that you can't implement that program or that project fully.
[3:57:39] Yeah, and again, I'm not looking at micro-manage. What your role is as county manager, what I'm,
[3:57:45] What I mean is kind of that bigger picture of room and forecast and I think the classic
[3:57:50] concept is going to be a big part of our monetary implementations.
[3:57:57] I just need the bigger picture, not to specifically state the advance for each department but
[3:58:03] just to help my brain listen to the information provided.
[3:58:10] Just like I made an actual client actually target in order to consider all the details of
[3:58:15] that point.
[3:58:17] I just need the bigger picture in order to consider the information that would be presented
[3:58:21] in terms of trying to get to BSUC goals.
[3:58:24] And I would like to get beyond that too.
[3:58:26] I mean, I would like not only be as successful as but whatever the goals of the departments
[3:58:30] and elected officials because I think that could help inform our goals.
[3:58:35] And that's what work session is.
[3:58:38] It's about import, not just sort of dictated from the top down,
[3:58:43] but just to get a chance to really talk to other officials
[3:58:46] about the carbon dioxide and the liquid officials
[3:58:51] about where they see their department going,
[3:58:53] because they have, and again, not to get into the detail,
[3:58:56] we very clear with all the carbon dioxide and all
[3:58:58] liquid officials, we're not trying to identify,
[3:59:02] and we should give them the rest of the work,
[3:59:03] and not trying to get into the detail of their budget.
[3:59:06] I'm just thinking overall sort of the direction
[3:59:09] of that department and how it can help contribute
[3:59:12] to the whole of the county, which is what the board manages.
[3:59:16] So yes, we've received those already.
[3:59:18] That's a part of what I get from them.
[3:59:20] With their next-year work plans,
[3:59:22] it's not just how they're gonna implement
[3:59:24] the commissioners or the county's goals,
[3:59:26] but what goals do they have for their own department?
[3:59:29] So I think we could easily have that conversation.
[3:59:31] And if you want to have an idea of what our revenue is going to be, it might make sense
[3:59:37] then to wait until our September 14th and 28th work sessions to have those meetings with
[3:59:43] the departments.
[3:59:44] And that was my question to Commissioner Cooper.
[3:59:46] Do you want to postpone and have the information before we have the general discussion with
[3:59:52] department heads and electeds?
[3:59:55] I mean, maybe that doesn't make more sense and it gives time less sort of...
[4:00:00] And you, and Ramona, to get into the budget process a little bit so they have actually thought through this when they present to us. So you're not having to have them come back to us because they don't have the time to really think through their budgets. Mr. Larry. I agree. I think September is a better, more sensible time. Okay. I'm fine with that as well. And I think Mike, if you could give them all a heads up about the conversation, that would be helpful.
[4:00:28] so they're not worrying or wondering what we want to talk about that we're really specific and what we'd like to hear from and then discuss.
[4:00:40] Absolutely, that sounds good.
[4:00:42] And then I'm just curious if there are any departments or offices that you don't aren't feeling the need to meet with.
[4:00:52] I know one, for instance, when I meet with Emil, his duties are so spectacularly driven.
[4:00:59] that when we get into the next year work plan,
[4:01:03] it's usually doing more of the same.
[4:01:06] I didn't know if you wanted to try and meet with everyone
[4:01:09] because that could make person full days,
[4:01:13] but I also know that some departments
[4:01:16] are far more impactful to the county's goals than others.
[4:01:22] I wonder if we could hit some of those less involved
[4:01:26] discussions in August because I would like to actually hear from folks but again
[4:01:32] like you say I don't want to overburden us in September but and I just think
[4:01:37] it's nice for a rude apartment to you know to have that conversation at some
[4:01:42] point in the year and it makes sense so maybe we could add on that.
[4:01:47] I'm happy to suggest to schedule them for each of those three work section
[4:01:51] days. Okay. That makes sense to me.
[4:01:56] Thank you.
[4:02:02] Are we ready to move on? I think any other
[4:02:05] questions on that? I think we're ready to do the EGNOR MOU. Excellent. So I would like to
[4:02:15] share my screen.
[4:02:22] So before you you have a memorandum of understanding between the
[4:02:27] county and Monosimbo water company that is for the operation and maintenance of
[4:02:35] the Agna water dark. They have come back to us after several back and forth
[4:02:42] negotiations they're willing to honor the $7 per thousand gallon rate for
[4:02:48] same-scale county residents, they're willing to do all the new customer
[4:02:53] signups, the financial administration and billing, any scheduled as well as
[4:03:00] emergency maintenance, and then the rate for non-counting residents will be
[4:03:07] $10 per 1,000 gallons so that we're not undercutting the water doc that's in
[4:03:14] town of Del Creek. I did not want to have a situation where we were stealing away their
[4:03:20] customer service ours will be at the same rate as theirs for county residents.
[4:03:28] Ramona is just as a side note is doing a great job with these two billing cycles to try and
[4:03:37] not only have notices been sent to the users posted on the dock but they're receiving
[4:03:42] in their bills, the reminder, and how to sign up with
[4:03:46] monotony of the water, continue to water that service.
[4:03:53] They are going to provide us with a list of all the current,
[4:04:00] we are going to provide them with a list of all current users.
[4:04:02] Actually, I don't think I need to go through these portions as much
[4:04:08] as highlight every six months they're going to provide us with
[4:04:12] the detailed summary of costs and revenues specific to the dock.
[4:04:18] They wanted to make sure that this would not end up in a proposition where they were
[4:04:23] losing funds.
[4:04:24] So if after six months there is expenses and excess of revenue, we will provide payment
[4:04:31] to them just so that they get to a great even point.
[4:04:36] The term of this MOU is for a year and a half, essentially, because a little bit less than
[4:04:45] a year and a half, actually, because it's from the effective days.
[4:04:48] So if this is authorized to be signed today, it will go for a year and a half, at which
[4:04:54] time we would look at how the system is operating if they're generating.
[4:05:00] Access revenue originally, I had asked them to set that access revenue aside and then remit a portion that back to us, keep portioned in a separate standalone fund. They were willing to do that, but they were willing to say. Let's try for this almost a year and a half. And then, if they're continuing to have access revenue, we could look at reducing the water rate.
[4:05:28] For simple go county users, or we could read and go shape this entire agreement
[4:05:35] That's the biggest change. It is right now this MOU is between
[4:05:43] The manager Steve Bowman of Mono's in the water company to myself and
[4:05:49] So I'm bringing this to you today
[4:05:52] It has been reviewed by Amy as well as Dennis
[4:05:55] their attorney and
[4:06:01] And they actually signed it. I just forwarded all of you with the assigned copy. They discussed that at their meeting. I think last night. So I'm not as
[4:06:09] you will water company at least is in agreement with this. Okay questions from Mike.
[4:06:15] If you have any, I can't see you. So go ahead.
[4:06:17] for you to design.
[4:06:20] Okay.
[4:06:21] Okay.
[4:06:22] And then we're going to one of those possibilities.
[4:06:24] The bonds in the water.
[4:06:25] How does the news sign up for service?
[4:06:32] Is everybody considered new?
[4:06:34] Can we streamline this process by everybody including the current users time to sign up on their
[4:06:40] bonds in the county?
[4:06:41] Or do we...
[4:06:43] Everybody, including the new users, will sign up for a new account?
[4:06:48] Is everybody including existing users will sign up for a new account?
[4:06:52] Thanks.
[4:06:53] In remote minutes here, if we don't have any questions, I can't answer.
[4:06:57] She can probably.
[4:07:01] I think the rest of the mix has.
[4:07:04] Okay.
[4:07:04] Okay.
[4:07:04] We have exchanges to account for each.
[4:07:07] So we know that the doc was successfully installed and it is working according to plan.
[4:07:13] There were some users that expressed their difficulty with using technology or lack of the Internet.
[4:07:20] at their home. This system does, again, allow the cellular component to it.
[4:07:26] So folks could pay for water via their cell phone if they have an account at the site.
[4:07:31] We did install the cell booster, which it and was tested by IT.
[4:07:36] So the car is working as well.
[4:07:40] But yeah, I'm pretty excited that, you know,
[4:07:44] We're out in Ignore, almost three years ago, two years ago.
[4:07:51] I lighted as their biggest concern for the future of their community.
[4:07:58] So before I start, I'm not.
[4:08:01] No, this is great.
[4:08:03] Any other questions?
[4:08:05] If not, we'll take a motion.
[4:08:07] Lance.
[4:08:08] I moved to authorize the manager to send a memorandum
[4:08:12] I'm understanding with Monizuma water to manage and repair as needed, the Agnara water
[4:08:17] dock.
[4:08:19] Sorry again.
[4:08:20] Any further discussion?
[4:08:22] Seeing none.
[4:08:23] How do you vote?
[4:08:24] Hi.
[4:08:25] Hi.
[4:08:25] Hi.
[4:08:26] Thank you, and thank you, and thank you.
[4:08:31] Okay.
[4:08:32] So I believe we are now on to administrative matters 12 a consideration of Resolution 2022
[4:08:43] 22-28, authorizing the acquisition of certain real property, go ahead, Mike.
[4:08:52] I'm going to share my screen again.
[4:08:58] Okay.
[4:08:59] Resolution 2022-28 would authorize the chair or vice chair to sign the closing documents
[4:09:10] for the acquisition of the Diamond Ridge parcel.
[4:09:13] It also would ratify the execution of the contract, which I signed on January 14th of this year, and that's essentially, if that's what this is, the town of Telluride, I understand, authorized their mayor to sign this similar document yesterday.
[4:09:43] Questions for Mike?
[4:09:50] Go ahead, Commissioner Cooper.
[4:09:53] And that contract was...
[4:10:00] I mentioned the contracting of service. With the contract. With jack pictures of forgetting
[4:10:13] his business
[4:10:13] thing right now, but that was the contract that the board was briefed on.
[4:10:24] Sorry, I just put a record.
[4:10:27] So it would be contracted in January 14th to operate that position of subject property
[4:10:38] based on all the conditions that are in the contract.
[4:10:41] Correct.
[4:10:42] Perfect.
[4:10:42] Thank you.
[4:10:43] Sure.
[4:10:48] We have, sorry, I'm trying to see here.
[4:10:51] We have two.
[4:10:53] We have Morgan Smith has hand that.
[4:11:02] Hold on.
[4:11:02] Go ahead, yes, we can hear you now.
[4:11:04] I guess this is the biggest moment in the session,
[4:11:06] and I would like to make a comment on this.
[4:11:09] And I'll keep up with you since you,
[4:11:11] and you probably likely know my views
[4:11:14] on this subject concerning this purchase.
[4:11:17] But I do want to point out one very important thing
[4:11:19] because this obviously is the authority
[4:11:21] in which to sign the actual contract.
[4:11:23] And so I wanted to address one thing
[4:11:25] that I don't think has been really raised
[4:11:27] and I didn't raise in the past,
[4:11:28] but I would really ask the council members
[4:11:30] to commissioners, I mean, to take a look at.
[4:11:35] A number of you have heard in the past that many people are surprised about the amount
[4:11:40] of money that is being offered on this, and I think that is very relevant to your determination
[4:11:45] today as to whether to assign authority to agree to this deal.
[4:11:49] In particular, Bob Creole spoke about this before, but I want to talk about something very specific
[4:11:55] because I want to give you some real facts that you can take a look at.
[4:11:59] And I really ask you to take a look at before agreed to this.
[4:12:03] The document that I strongly suggest you already was the appraisal that was submitted to Dola in January of this year for the grant.
[4:12:11] And that valuation gave in $6.9 million, which of course is about $300,000 less than is being offered.
[4:12:20] But the real important part is the crucial information that the appraiser clearly was not given.
[4:12:26] And so I want to go through just a couple of those things quickly.
[4:12:32] In the cover letter of that phrase, so it basically claims that there have been no transactions involved in the subject property,
[4:12:39] through your period, preceding the evaluation rate of this report.
[4:12:45] This statement is not correct.
[4:12:47] And no one from the town of Teluguay told the appraiser as far as we're aware of the misunderstanding
[4:12:55] that the town moved, that that was not true,
[4:12:58] because on January 15, 2021, we had emails from
[4:13:02] Jack Drucker's office to Lansfield on,
[4:13:05] sending him over to paperwork that memorialized
[4:13:09] his purchase of the property, from his partner, Jim Warwick,
[4:13:14] in March 7th of 2022, and the over top
[4:13:19] real purchase price was $2.1 million.
[4:13:22] dollars. And so that's a really, really, really big fact to not have the appraiser have because
[4:13:29] we had the purchase, which was an honest link for exactly between two people who own
[4:13:34] the fiduciary due to each other, for $2.1 million for each free loss. And the current value
[4:13:43] of what is being offered is basically $350 times that amount. The appraiser also provided some
[4:13:51] good information on page 50, you did an analysis of how much property has increased burden
[4:13:56] in this pandemic period, and found that homes had increased as much as 35% but lots.
[4:14:04] They get lost, they've actually only increased about 3% during this period of time, and
[4:14:11] he has a very good analysis on that.
[4:14:14] And so, you know, the problem is, if he wasn't given that information about a actual non-slite
[4:14:20] transaction for this particular piece of property, that's a huge deal.
[4:14:25] And I asked that somebody talked to him to find out if this is a business which is, if
[4:14:30] they actually had that information about the transaction.
[4:14:34] As a secondary point, there's some other things that I'm just pointing out.
[4:14:37] One is incorrect. This says that there is water on property, a weld on the property, that is not correct.
[4:14:46] And I know that because the part that my property was reduced with my property connected to the diamond grids,
[4:14:54] and that weld was never been connected to the property and it's going to take a lot of work to do.
[4:15:00] The reason that's important is that his evaluation is based on it and basically added $150,000 value to his properties, with his subtle incorrect assumption that it has a well, which he does not. The last thing that point out because all he does is know his properties in the areas, look at the comparables that he did, true of them are grayhead. We know grayhead is very expensive and is not comparable to his property right next to the airport.
[4:15:27] One of the besides which has, you know, prompted views of everything, and another one that's
[4:15:33] golden pledge which has explored very few of every day and is also, by the way, from the
[4:15:39] airport.
[4:15:40] And you know, that is now in 2.1, not even nearly, but to be fair on the internet.
[4:15:46] And so the reason that I raised these cases, we all know that there's a golden rate here.
[4:15:51] And as far as I understand, you guys don't actually know yet if you're going to get it because
[4:15:55] is you have to get a contract from Dova
[4:15:57] that will have lots of conditions in it
[4:15:59] that I'm not even sure if you know what they are.
[4:16:02] But what happens if this money doesn't come true
[4:16:04] and you could bring to a purchase
[4:16:06] and you will $2.5 billion on this loan
[4:16:09] for properties in the interest,
[4:16:11] not worth it by anyone who knows about this property.
[4:16:16] So this is my last chance to put in my comments
[4:16:20] on this and I just ask that you slow down a little bit.
[4:16:24] ask them these questions of the appraisers and find out why these numbers are what they are.
[4:16:31] And then about the prior sale, they're just getting information on that.
[4:16:34] Before you commit the accounting to a low of the $2.5 million that you might have to end up paying themselves.
[4:16:42] That means you didn't go live.
[4:16:45] So in any event, I thank you very much for all of your attention.
[4:16:48] And with that, I will give you a round of applause.
[4:16:52] Thank you. We also have Virginia Luccarelli with her hand up.
[4:16:59] Go ahead. Thank you.
[4:17:04] I also wanted to ask you to pause and
[4:17:11] spend a little bit more time planning and my thoughts were similar in the mornings but not as
[4:17:17] specific. As this process has moved forward, the first, the planning commission and then the
[4:17:27] that they had very specific parameters
[4:17:29] with which they can consider resuming
[4:17:33] and what they were doing.
[4:17:37] And so in both, I believe, one of those
[4:17:42] to the planning commission and board of county commissioners.
[4:17:46] There were statements made, you know,
[4:17:49] saying that all the other concerns that people raised
[4:17:52] should not be considered because you're narrowly focused
[4:17:55] on what you're doing here.
[4:17:59] And I just wanted to make sure that in the process
[4:18:03] from a physically responsible way,
[4:18:07] make sure that you understand the cost
[4:18:10] beyond simply the purchase that we're associated with.
[4:18:14] I believe on May 18th meeting there was a letter from Eric White
[4:18:20] I'm saying that just getting water there is going to be a more from 10.3 to 12.7 million.
[4:18:27] Connecting to this sewer plant which means upgrades is about $3.6 billion.
[4:18:34] I think the annual power is going to cost $2.3 million to try a big three-phase power over there.
[4:18:41] These are a lot of upfront costs and I would really encourage you to step back
[4:18:48] Have a conversation about the feasibility, suitability, and affordability of this project.
[4:18:55] I don't see how it makes sense.
[4:18:58] Thank you.
[4:19:00] We have, say, a lavender hand up and then maybe Mike can address some of these.
[4:19:06] Go ahead, Sarah.
[4:19:08] Soon as you're unmuted.
[4:19:13] Thank you.
[4:19:14] I will be super brief.
[4:19:17] I just want to know on the record as agreeing with Virginia and Morgan, and I just tune
[4:19:24] into this to see what will happen today, and this resolution has been teased out as a
[4:19:31] pro forma matter that a data going will be approved.
[4:19:35] And I just want to say for the record that it doesn't have to be, and I really urge you to step
[4:19:40] back and really pause and hopefully pull the fun on the sand deal and restart this planning
[4:19:47] process as he would with the plant payment development because there's so many unknowns
[4:19:50] in terms of costs and feasibility and impact and you know there is a reason this land has
[4:19:57] that I'm sold for two decades.
[4:20:00] It's because it has problems, it doesn't have water, and it is best suited if we're all open space. So, thanks for listening to us. And I hope you'll at least think about, kind of, the rights on this, on this resolution. Thank you. Thank you.
[4:20:17] Mike, you got any response in particular to be happy to respond to those items that the board would like me to. Yes, please. Yes.
[4:20:27] Okay, so first off, I'd like to share my screen for a moment, and I want to just show the board the three parcels.
[4:20:39] If you look at the ownership, you'll see that this is owned by Diamond Ridge Hill, tell you right at LLC, in common interest with James' work,
[4:20:51] as is this parcel, the middle parcel.
[4:20:53] The northernmost parcel, however, is not.
[4:20:59] So it's my understanding that Mr. Vickers bought out his partner's ownership interest
[4:21:07] and that Daniel Ridge, the right LLC, was a combination of Mr. Vickers and his now deceased wife.
[4:21:17] And then for the southern two parcels, they were all so they had a third partner of Mr. Word.
[4:21:22] He purchased out Mr. Worst ownership interest of these two parcels, so I don't I would have to defer to Amy or to a land use attorney about whether or
[4:21:35] not buying out of partnership interest would be considered an onsite transaction, but I don't believe it is.
[4:21:43] Regarding the second point of the water and the well on the property, you can see that there was this very long tail because
[4:21:51] There were water issues with this northernmost parcel, the well that serves that 35 acre parcel is actually up all the way up here, and that's why they had this weird tail to this.
[4:22:05] If the proposal was to serve a future development with the wells on site, I would also probably be concerned because of the amount of water and then just by the amount of water.
[4:22:21] and wouldn't support a significant number of pumps.
[4:22:24] But that is not what is being proposed.
[4:22:28] And as far as how that well or water on the property
[4:22:34] affects the value, again, I did not order the appraisal,
[4:22:39] but I didn't see it.
[4:22:41] And it did not cause me concern whether or not
[4:22:46] the pumps that they use working comparable,
[4:22:49] I guess I would argue that if you're looking at views and location and you're comparing it to grayhead, which is, you know, nearby,
[4:23:00] that they are probably valid comms. But again, I'm not a land use attorney award, I'm pretty sure.
[4:23:06] And then finally, regarding the dole grant, we have received our letter of award from Dole Up for the full $5 million.
[4:23:14] It is stipulated that we would only receive it if we close on the property and it has the original conditions that we've already agreed to,
[4:23:23] such as producing half of the homes that are developed on site at an affordability level of 120% AMI or below.
[4:23:36] I'm happy to try and answer any other questions the board has.
[4:23:39] I think you covered those pretty well.
[4:23:43] Commissioner, should I have any other questions from Mike?
[4:23:46] Amy, do you want to weigh in on that one item?
[4:23:50] Well, without having seen any of their partnership agreements or any of the documents on that sale,
[4:23:56] I mean, I really couldn't speculate as to whether or not that was an arm's length deal or just something between business partners,
[4:24:02] and they decided that they would buy each other out with the original amount that they invested in
[4:24:09] that property so I can't say that I don't know whether or not that's something
[4:24:13] that anybody else can say at this point unless they've seen those documents are
[4:24:17] I will just tell you we're in a contract to purchase property and the
[4:24:21] appraisal objection deadline was April 7th 2022 you I mean I there's there's
[4:24:28] something saying that you can't back out of the contract but the earnest
[4:24:31] money is $50,000 and so if you choose to not go forward with the purchase of the
[4:24:35] property. It looks like that at least would be the amount that would be forfeited. If
[4:24:42] not more I haven't been able to get through all of the specific details of the contract
[4:24:46] but I have a hold up now. And I don't see anywhere in the contract that there's actually an assurance
[4:24:53] about a well, there's no well permit number listed in here. I'm looking at the water
[4:24:59] right.
[4:25:00] It's well-right to water and sewer taps matter. I think that it's always been very clear that if the county and the town were to purchase that property, and if you are to go forward with developing it for affordable housing, it wouldn't be to contingent on a well. You'd have to be bringing up water in a different way, and I can completely appreciate that the other parties have brought in their experts with their opinions on things. But right now,
[4:25:29] Now the town of Telluride has its own process for being able to bring water and sewer to a particular area and they're the ones that are going to have to do that deep dive to see what that cost would actually look like.
[4:25:43] Thank you. Any other commissioner questions? We have Morgan's hand up one more time.
[4:25:51] I'm sorry, Hillary, I'm fading into the background.
[4:25:55] Go ahead, Commissioner Cooper.
[4:25:57] Thank you.
[4:26:02] I'm just in response, real quick, to the purpose of that door
[4:26:07] grant that the percent of those homes must be developed at
[4:26:12] 100 percent or by the rest.
[4:26:14] That does not mean any way that that is our plan.
[4:26:17] My unfortunately has been quoted in public by speaking, you know, what the plan is.
[4:26:24] We have not gotten into the planning phase of this yet.
[4:26:27] Mike is just simply referring to the facts, and he's not prejudging any plans.
[4:26:32] So I want to make that very clear with all of you who are picking up on a lot of the things that Mike has said
[4:26:38] as facts as they will be carried over into the plan.
[4:26:42] and we have not got to be specific planning phase
[4:26:47] as we're all well aware now of this project
[4:26:50] and I was certainly gonna say as one commissioner,
[4:26:53] I certainly intend to make to ensure
[4:26:56] that one of 50% of those will be at some level of AMI
[4:27:02] that is 120 or less and perhaps a little more
[4:27:07] because we need affordable housing for up to 277
[4:27:11] I don't even know, are you 250% am I?
[4:27:13] Because of a lack of availability of rent here.
[4:27:17] So again, that is part of the planning phase.
[4:27:19] And we're not going to do that very much
[4:27:21] with boards that planning phase, which we will initiate
[4:27:25] sometime after we get through these necessary documents.
[4:27:30] And I will just also respond that I am going
[4:27:34] to approve this resolution, not because I'm afraid
[4:27:39] of losing $50,000 if we don't, but because I am very much looking forward to partnering
[4:27:47] with the town and potentially others to build a new neighborhood of affordable housing
[4:27:53] that will be compatible, I believe, and completely respectful of the local neighbors.
[4:28:03] So I look forward to getting to that point and also look forward to the fact that now this process can be much more public.
[4:28:14] We were in a real estate transaction before, and then of course, and maybe now we were in a quasi-judicial process before at this point forward,
[4:28:23] We're really willing to be able to engage in a planning process that will be more publicly
[4:28:30] facing and transparent and very much look forward to the input that we will get during that process.
[4:28:36] Great. Thank you.
[4:28:37] Morgan Smith here again and I begin and then we'll conclude this matter.
[4:28:40] Just very briefly because I just wanted to be clear for the commissioners.
[4:28:45] The development place is an issue because it increased the value of the property by about $150,000
[4:28:52] in the appraisers' mind, and the key on that is, yes, there is a well that is not
[4:28:58] part of it, but nothing is connecting it, and none of the infrastructure would make it work,
[4:29:03] so that was through proper, and you didn't know that.
[4:29:05] So that's one. Secondly, on the contract, as I have read it, the company has every right
[4:29:10] to get out of this contract for any reason or no reason, up until the time that it is closed.
[4:29:14] So I do not believe that there is any $50,000 payment that has to be needed,
[4:29:19] as you've reserved that for your right and that's in your contract.
[4:29:23] The last thing I say is, the whole point about due diligence is finding out about transactions
[4:29:29] like that occurred in very short time before you entered into your agreement, and it's
[4:29:35] a fairly simple determination to determine the percentages of what was owned, which is
[4:29:49] of this and an arms-leafed creative section.
[4:29:52] Those are important facts.
[4:29:54] I mean, those are the kind of things
[4:29:56] you should be asking about.
[4:29:57] Not to say that I don't have it, I don't know.
[4:30:00] So that is my, without, I leave it out. Thank you all for your time. I really do. And thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other questions from commissioners? Not ready for a motion?
[4:30:34] All right.
[4:30:36] Hi.
[4:30:37] Thank you.
[4:30:39] Next up.
[4:30:41] Where am I?
[4:30:43] It would be James from I don't know.
[4:30:46] Oh, we get to see James.
[4:30:49] Four.
[4:30:50] This is similar to the consideration of the chair signature of resolution 2022-29 authorized in
[4:30:59] the acquisition of certain real property.
[4:31:00] this is a noirwood property.
[4:31:11] To authorize the acquisition of 11 Miguel Street,
[4:31:20] this granted
[4:31:26] social services was awarded
[4:31:28] through the state to assist with housing and a salary assistance with a hiring of
[4:31:35] beat-by-ling wool behavioral health clinician, and we are currently under contract for this
[4:31:43] Any questions from commissioners?
[4:31:51] And if you don't mind stopping your screen share, I can't see Commissioner Cooper.
[4:31:57] Okay.
[4:31:58] Any questions?
[4:32:00] No questions.
[4:32:01] I've been in contact with Mike and with James about this and also with Carol and it seems
[4:32:07] to tick the boxes that we require.
[4:32:10] Okay.
[4:32:14] Would that be ready for a motion?
[4:32:15] I
[4:32:18] will do that. But I have to find the motion on my agenda. Here we go. I move to approve
[4:32:28] the chair signature of resolution 2022-29 authorizing the acquisition of certain real property
[4:32:34] in Norway.
[4:32:37] Any
[4:32:40] further discussion?
[4:32:42] Not, how do you vote?
[4:32:43] Hi.
[4:32:44] Hi.
[4:32:48] Thanks, James.
[4:32:49] Next up is 12-D executive session, discussion of a Memorandum of Outer Standing on Funding
[4:32:56] and Costure with the town of Tyride, under citation 4-A-B.
[4:33:04] I'm wondering if you would like to, and it's totally up to you, if you would like to do the updates and the cases where these and the folks that are staying on to listen to
[4:33:17] Let's go to attorney matters if there's any general attorney matters and then we'll do our commissioner updates
[4:33:24] And I also have some, some, a couple more manager updates whenever we can get back to that too.
[4:33:30] Okay. Amy, are you ready?
[4:33:37] Yeah, I don't have anything.
[4:33:39] Oh, shall we note our, you're outstanding award from, yes, from the attorney's conference that you went to?
[4:33:56] It's not anywhere near as stunning as Mike's Rising Star Award, but it's pretty spectacular
[4:34:04] in its own way.
[4:34:05] It's spectacular in its own way, absolutely.
[4:34:10] We're glad to have you back in person.
[4:34:13] Okay, Mike, do you want to finish up on your manager manners?
[4:34:17] Thank you. Just a couple of updates and then one item that I would like the board to consider and that I'll bring back to you next week today.
[4:34:26] First off is we've had some correspondence with Julie Constan and C.Dot about the chain-up stations.
[4:34:33] They are still moving forward with design and planning on the two locations.
[4:34:38] The one that was identified west of deep creek on that currently unused of whole off area and then the other up by west meadows.
[4:34:49] Specifically, she confirmed that they would not be constructing them this year, but we'll be looking at a summer of 2023 construction timeline.
[4:35:00] They are claiming difficulties in finding the remote sensing technology, but we did request to meet with them to specifically discuss the related before any plans are confirmed. So we're looking at a timeline this fall, where we'll reconvene. I know that we've had some additional outreach from the homeowners association representative of its team.
[4:35:29] inches and we have several others that are concerned about the lighting so I
[4:35:35] just wanted to give you a heads up that we are in correspondence and we're
[4:35:38] looking towards a September up to overtime frame to have a work session
[4:35:42] with Julie Helmut. Okay thanks so Jenny Russell had reached out to us about
[4:35:48] having an update which is ironic because we have her listed at a degree 29 work
[4:35:56] session for nothing except water but I think obviously Jenny represents the
[4:36:02] county and the self-water basin round table two so I've confirmed with her no
[4:36:08] she doesn't anymore okay my apology there
[4:36:13] April, April, April, April. Oh, Jenny, Jenny, the chair of the round table April is
[4:36:37] Thank you so we are she is confirmed that she can attend with us on the 29th and give us an update
[4:36:48] from Southwest Water Conservation District,
[4:36:51] as well as she has two additional items
[4:36:56] that she related to water in San Miguel County,
[4:37:00] and she would like to update us on,
[4:37:02] that neither one is related to our ongoing case
[4:37:05] with the San Miguel Water Conservation District.
[4:37:12] I have heard back, finally, from Tigray,
[4:37:16] and Agnore School did, all right,
[4:37:18] the Dolores County Superintendents
[4:37:20] about the Agnore School.
[4:37:24] They're born as interested in selling
[4:37:26] the entire school parcel
[4:37:28] and they've had some interest from private businesses
[4:37:31] that are interested in purchasing it.
[4:37:33] I reconvade our interest in the bus barn
[4:37:37] and there's a weird property sliver
[4:37:40] that intersects to the fire station.
[4:37:44] So he is asked us if we would like to acquire the bus the bus barn as well as a portion of property that we come back to them with a proposal.
[4:37:57] So I'm trying to have the land estimates but I don't have a means yet unless we want to hire an appraiser to give us an appraised value for that bus barn building.
[4:38:13] But I do believe we could acquire it for significantly less than if we were to construct
[4:38:20] or help the fire district construct something new.
[4:38:23] I think this will likely be one of our agenda topics to discuss with the fire district in
[4:38:30] our meeting next week.
[4:38:31] And I wanted to give you a heads up on that as well as a plan to try and get some estimates
[4:38:38] from that area for similar type storage buildings.
[4:38:42] Those buildings are being used by the fire distra currently
[4:38:45] to store fire equipment.
[4:38:49] A couple of things.
[4:38:54] Next week, as I mentioned, we're in Ignar,
[4:38:56] however, that will be a Zoom meeting
[4:38:58] that will be in person only.
[4:39:01] We may have cellular coverage there,
[4:39:04] but if folks are interested in joining us,
[4:39:06] If the meeting is going to be from 2 to 6 p.m., so a little different time in the normal
[4:39:12] for our meeting next Wednesday day card.
[4:39:14] Following that, we'll have a work session here in person, tell you what, and be a zoomer.
[4:39:21] The county will be closed for the July 4th holiday reopening Tuesday, July 5th.
[4:39:29] The next San Miguel Regional Housing Authority meeting will be at noon on Tuesday, June 28th.
[4:39:35] And then lastly, I received a request from Jennifer in the Sheriff's Office for specific
[4:39:43] to their corrections and communication staff who, as we heard earlier today, is a singular
[4:39:54] are most commuting group, won't just commuting group in the Sheriff's Office.
[4:40:00] The majority of those employees are coming from Montrose, but some as far as Delta, Delta Creek, and other locations. And with fuel prices, they are having a pretty high impact of cost. The sheriff wants to propose wanting me to bring forth to you this idea of allowing a $100 per pay period stipend for that group of employees only within the sheriff's office.
[4:40:30] office. I had Christina and I have spoken about this and we've reached out to
[4:40:37] employers council. They did not have one of my ideas as well. We offer for them
[4:40:43] and we've had to offer for others but then it should be fair and it should be
[4:40:46] based off of your, do you have to be in person? How far do you have to communicate
[4:40:50] all that? Employers council's overly simplified answer was do not pick and choose
[4:40:57] employees if you're going to do one division, you can do that division safely and
[4:41:02] start legally, but you're going to get into labor law concerns if you start
[4:41:08] picking and choosing who but employees. The Sheriff's Office, as we remember, is
[4:41:13] on a 13-page cycle, not the 26-page period cycle that the rest of the county is on,
[4:41:19] so this would result in a remaining year impact of approximately $600 per
[4:41:26] are employed if the county were to authorize this and continue it through the end of this year.
[4:41:32] Again, I'm not asking for a decision today, but I wanted to give you a heads up on what the request was.
[4:41:38] I have verified that with two positions in CCS that have remained vacant throughout the year, they do have a significant amount of savings.
[4:41:50] When we were budgeting for fuel oil and we were looking at historic fuel prices, we weren't expecting
[4:41:56] as dramatic a rise, so they don't have the extra funding in their fuel budget because we
[4:42:03] projected that fuel prices would be continuing at a similar level to what they weren't pre-pandemic.
[4:42:11] So, all that is to say there isn't the funding in their fuel portion of their budget,
[4:42:16] but if you look at their overall budget,
[4:42:21] they do have significant savings
[4:42:23] that could pay for this expense.
[4:42:26] So just to clarify by offering it to all CCS personnel,
[4:42:34] we're okay with the, you can offer it to a division
[4:42:37] but not pick and choose within that.
[4:42:40] I can ask that it just be three employees in CCS.
[4:42:46] Okay. Any questions from other commissioners?
[4:42:50] Mike, you're saying we don't have to make a decision now. Do you expect us to have that decision to make it out?
[4:42:56] Okay.
[4:42:58] And I'll write this up and we'll add it to the agenda somehow.
[4:43:02] Okay.
[4:43:03] Sounds good.
[4:43:05] Got a head shaking, yes, for commissioners.
[4:43:09] All right.
[4:43:10] Anything else for us from you, Mike? For right now?
[4:43:13] Okay. We'll do Commissioner updates. We'll just start off.
[4:43:20] Happy birthday last week
[4:43:22] to Hillary. We had Matt and I gave a great, hey him, that too. Great presentation through
[4:43:30] the regenerative recovery coalition yesterday on the Colorado state's progress on soil health.
[4:43:38] that was well-attended via Zoom, and didn't too much in the last week, but moving forward,
[4:43:46] I have put a 40-mile, we have the same bill, we were stakeholders meeting by Zoom tomorrow
[4:43:53] after noon. The statewide gray outer meeting on Monday, that's been an interesting and very
[4:43:59] well one meeting as we look to make the already adopted statewide rules more
[4:44:09] county-friendly or more implementable. And then just lastly, we'll note it is
[4:44:17] first-grasement. It's open and out there. It just starts at five, but at 6.30 we have
[4:44:23] the kitchen dollars which has our own shonslein as one of the members. So it was
[4:44:28] nice to be able to support community or community in that fashion and then a few, well, everybody
[4:44:35] out there knows that if you don't have a tag on your card to get into county, the restrictions
[4:44:40] will start applying tomorrow with the best starting tomorrow.
[4:44:45] I think you may get into town.
[4:44:47] Getting into town, sorry, yes, that is a big difference.
[4:44:51] The commissioner, I attended a smart meeting, oh yeah, the one I couldn't actually attend
[4:44:58] and be as we internet was-
[4:45:00] So, Matt, you were struggling with unit, but I was able to attend, and the biggest news is that Smart has been trying to understand senior and disabled transit service on that needs and has engaged a consulting firm that had some in-person meetings and learned some information that was useful, but unfortunately also learned that it's difficult to contact
[4:45:29] seniors and sometimes disabled folks and especially in the West End because their internet
[4:45:37] access isn't always easy. So they're going to attend senior lunches and try to really
[4:45:44] drill down and get some better survey face-to-face information.
[4:45:51] Beyond that, smart remains expanding service, monitoring existing routes, and moving forward
[4:46:04] planning for the future, budgetarily, the organization is in good shape, but with rising
[4:46:10] fuel prices and supply chain issues, there's some questions about getting buses in the future
[4:46:18] and David Avril and Kerry are making some decisions about whether to revamp existing
[4:46:24] fleet or try to get in the line for a long line for a new fleet as that needs to be
[4:46:32] turned over.
[4:46:33] In general, smarts doing well.
[4:46:35] I've also been working with STAR and the citizens of Ofer and trying to continue the conversation
[4:46:43] with Tri-State and Forest Service, stars actually in a meeting right now, with Tri-State
[4:46:49] and the Forest Service, I believe, and hoping that they are able to work towards a more
[4:46:56] agreeable project. Great. Commissioner Cooper.
[4:47:05] I don't have any updates, but I wonder if
[4:47:11] along the lines of board you should learn just that if it makes sense you might review or review
[4:47:19] for James to start attending some of those. So one of those senior events to talk about the update
[4:47:24] on broadband, and when it will become more available to, you can give that update tomorrow.
[4:47:31] I'm sorry, next week, to EGNAR, but I don't wonder also about that in the rest of the
[4:47:36] end.
[4:47:37] And maybe, you know, down Valley, we know that not too many people tend to listen to our
[4:47:42] meetings.
[4:47:43] So I wonder if we should be more proactive in getting the information out about when broadband
[4:47:48] and will be more ill because of the county's
[4:47:51] pro-loat efforts in the private envisages.
[4:47:57] I'd be happy to.
[4:47:58] We are still waiting on low-mast equipment detail
[4:48:02] before we make any public announcements
[4:48:04] because there's a lead time on it,
[4:48:07] but we should have that soon
[4:48:09] and I'd be happy to join any of those.
[4:48:13] Great.
[4:48:14] All right, I think with that,
[4:48:15] we are now ready for our executive session
[4:48:19] and basically for the public still on there, we'll go into executive session, we'll come out of executive session report on any staff direction, or if we may give staff direction, and then we would adjourn.
[4:48:35] So with that, I would entertain a motion.
[4:48:40] I move to go into executive's session to discuss a memorandum of understanding on funding
[4:48:46] and cost share with the town of Fire Tribe under section 4A and B.
[4:48:54] Okay, how do we vote?
[4:48:56] Aye.
[4:48:57] Aye.
[4:48:58] All right.
[4:48:59] As we transition, thank you for the public for joining in and we will not send you next
[4:49:07] week, but the week after we will be in a work session and we will be on Zoom.
[4:49:11] So, thank you.
[4:49:13] Recording stopped.
[4:49:31] Okay, we've back in business.
[4:49:32] Great.
[4:49:34] All right.
[4:49:38] D, where we just discussed a memorandum of an understanding on funding and cost share with
[4:49:44] the town of Telluride under citation for AB.
[4:49:47] That's for the Diamond Ridge property, and now it would entertain a motion,
[4:49:55] which would
[4:49:56] be to approve manager signature on set.
[4:50:03] Any further discussion? Seeing none, how do you vote? Aye. Aye. Anything else for this lovely Wednesday?
[4:50:17] Seeing none?
[4:50:19] consider ourselves at your end.
[4:50:24] Thank you.
[4:50:25] Thank you.
[4:50:26] Great to see you.
[4:50:33] Recording stopped.
[4:50:58] I'm going to be talking again about
[4:51:00] a potential ballot initiative
[4:51:02] at least for the lodging tax.
[4:51:05] Is there a set?
[4:51:07] We're going to talk today about
[4:51:08] ballot initiative.
[4:51:10] Oh!
[4:51:10] And Hillary mentioned it.
[4:51:12] We just pushed it again and
[4:51:13] talked about ballot.