[0:27] Okay, welcome to the Snowmass Village Town Council chambers. Today is October the 14th. It is 420. And this is work session. But Megan, please do roll call. Roll call for work session, October 14th. Councilmember Fred Steen. Here. Councilmember Merle. Here. Councilmember Schenk. Here. Councilmember Gustasen. Here. Mayor Madsen. Here. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

[0:55] So today we've got a discussion about our airport.

[0:59] We're going to have a presentation from Aspen Flywright, and also a whole lot of people for our local airport.

[1:07] So we'll start with Amy Lovens, welcome, Amy.

[1:10] Good to have you here.

[1:13] We're starting a little bit late.

[1:20] One second.

[1:21] Amy, on a mic.

[1:28] Well, thank you. I appreciate the invitation.

[1:30] Sorry I was delayed by an announced closed road.

[1:34] I'm going to summarize key facts for Aspen fly-right Chuck Butler will discuss the two ballot

[1:39] measures for total of 20 minutes then 10 discussion following followed by the same format

[1:44] with expansion advocates.

[1:47] Clint described your 83-minute session on July 17th with two leading expansion advocates,

[1:53] one of them on county staff as the fact-based staff presentation, supposedly official neutral

[1:59] and accurate.

[2:00] I didn't hear it that way, neither did several council members who asked to hear the other side.

[2:06] And almost three months and two follow-ups later, I appreciated Clint's kind invitation.

[2:12] He calls today's sessions both of them advocacy, the same length, hence manifestly fair.

[2:19] I think members and the public will have to decide whether giving the broke expansion side 3.8 times more face time than its critics is fair in a good look.

[2:29] but I'm glad to be here. All five of the airport groups in this taxonomy agree

[2:35] that our vital and beloved Aspen Airport is substandor deteriorated at a

[2:40] need of upgrades. But which ones? Everyone wants a safe, clean, quiet, better

[2:46] Aspen Airport for all. But the three upper groups shown do not want the bigger

[2:51] planes that the lower two groups want to add. Bigger planes that are not needed

[2:56] to achieve any of those goals and that they don't want to mention because it's unpopular.

[3:01] They never mentioned the specific plane, the 130 to 160 seat Airbus 2,300,

[3:07] for which the FAA wants Airport rebuilt. Our main airlines don't want it. The coalition

[3:13] agrees regional jets are the right size. It's not certified to fly here and the counties

[3:17] lead forecaster personally thanks it never will, but our Airport would be redesigned for that

[3:26] to 2,100 that you'll hear about, either one would open floodgates.

[3:31] Now, since all groups agree on the modernization agenda except bigger planes

[3:35] and the other side conflates the two, I'm going to focus just on bigger planes,

[3:39] not on the consensus topics like the new runway terminal and transit integration.

[3:44] When those come up, please ask yourself, does this goal need bigger planes?

[3:49] It won't. Modernization works fine with just regional jets.

[3:52] bigger planes are a bolt-on, not an unavoidably bundled package deal.

[3:57] I'm going to address safety, environment, overcrowding, regulation, and finance.

[4:02] Then, Chuck will discuss the ballot measures. Aspen flywright can't do that as the 510-C3 public charity.

[4:09] Our respective groups are completely separate and independent addressing different topics.

[4:14] Aspen flywright does science, facts, and public education.

[4:17] And we carefully document our work at aspenflywright.org.

[4:21] Now we're told that the new layout brings critical safety improvements on the

[4:26] ground and in the air, and that our airport does not meet FAA safety standards.

[4:31] Both statements are false claims that the 400-foot runway taxiway separation

[4:38] is an FAA safety requirement amid the punchline if we want to bring in bigger planes.

[4:44] But our airport is now safe for the airplanes that can legally use it.

[4:49] No analysis shows that it has any safety problem or how expansion for bigger planes would

[4:56] fix that problem.

[5:00] Would Wingspan limit to be exactly a safe with our actual planes and layout as with standard ones? That equivalent safety has worked fine for 25 years. There's no reason to change it. FEA said they wouldn't make us. You'll see the video. Deputy County manager Rich Engelhard said two years ago that our airport is about as safe as it can possibly be. This month, Bruce Gordon said as regards safety and the proximity of the taxiway to the runway, I personally have been flying in and out of this airport

[5:27] as an ATP commercial and CFII-I-rated pilot to top levels for over 40 years

[5:33] that have never felt the current distance to be a problem or felt unsafe.

[5:39] Now, I think the word safety is being thrown around here as a magic incantation,

[5:44] but not an actual need.

[5:45] The county was unable to show me any analysis of an actual safety problem.

[5:50] That's a myth.

[5:51] And I suppose theoretically wider separation or wider runways might make operations a little safer,

[5:59] but claiming that is really an attack on FAA safety standards, which don't call for those improvements for the planes we have.

[6:07] I'm not prepared to do that without strong evidence for which I can find no basis in practice or literature.

[6:15] Also, bigger planes are not safer for basic reasons.

[6:20] The new United E175 will have better avionics.

[6:24] That's good. That's done.

[6:28] Now, the FAA does prohibit local enforcement of unjust discrimination

[6:33] between different aircraft type sizes or operators.

[6:37] So once we allow any bigger planes in, all that fit can come,

[6:40] even if they're dirty, noisy, and bad for climate,

[6:43] but like the many hundreds of private 737s, A31920s, and many, many of other types.

[6:51] Bill Tomsich's misleading 737 post is almost all about implausible airline use, not the

[6:58] lighter private versions that are the real concern.

[7:01] Now nobody knows or can know whether worse old private planes would add more harm than bigger

[7:07] new airline or private planes could subtract.

[7:09] So net environmental effects are unknowable and unenforceable.

[7:14] But counting just airline plane's impacts, a small fraction of all our flights,

[7:20] the county's official forecast plunks all six of the specific environmental goals

[7:24] that it's claimed to deliver or align with.

[7:27] Rather than falling at least 30% by 2030 in yellow,

[7:33] the red data show that noise would rise and then fall imperceptibly.

[7:39] Noise damaging nitrogen oxides would just keep rising and CO2 emissions would fall little

[7:45] or could rise with proposed new east coast routes.

[7:49] The other three goals are also missed.

[7:52] The environmental benefits of the county's plan have been quietly dropped from the modernization

[8:00] plan online and yet are still advertised as what it would do.

[8:04] These goals may, however, be met within a decade, then far surpassed by super-quiet and

[8:13] clean planes whose $118 billion global order book now has more electric than fueled planes,

[8:20] but the county has refused for two years to learn about them and they're not in the forecast.

[8:25] They will lead frog even the best fueled planes, like the 2,200, leaving our new airport

[8:32] potentially not fit for purpose, overbuilt for field planes that can no longer compete.

[8:37] And they will not need wider wing spans as was thought until four years ago, new technology

[8:42] can reach any U.S. airport even London yet fit today's airfield.

[8:47] There's also a public health sleeper that worries me.

[8:50] Jet engines blast quintillions of dangerous nanoparticles toward the kids' ski school, the base

[8:55] of buttermilk, and scatter them also under the flight path.

[8:58] nanoparticles are not regulated, their levels at and around the airport have not been measured,

[9:03] but our citizen science measurements of air quality last year concern me and should concern

[9:09] everyone because new medical science implicates nanoparticles in many serious conditions,

[9:14] not previously described the air pollution. How many more visitors can our communities value and

[9:21] values except. The county forecasts 31% more business-gest flights and airline passengers

[9:28] in the 20 years from 2022. The FAA forecasts three-fourths more airline passengers in

[9:36] 2050 than we strain to serve now and then forevermore. It's pretty scary. That future

[9:41] threatens evermore queues, signups, limits, blackout dates for all our activities that we need

[9:49] for a good life of Bible workforce and strong families.

[9:53] And that's just the airline passengers,

[9:55] not the unknown and uncontrollable numbers arriving

[9:58] by the dominant private-

[10:00] What are the plans, especially forecasted charters with up to 60 seats that may or may not be used depending on market conditions? Are we full yet? See, if you don't think bigger planes will come, why build for them? If you think they will come, do you really think our elected officials will suddenly become able to halt the growth in STRs and other lodgings that really drive it? If not, why enable the airport overgrowth so we can find out? Conversably, why create big permanent problems when we don't need to?

[10:29] Speaking of the community with deep gratitude and admiration to all the citizens who worked

[10:36] so hard on ASE vision, I'm sorry to report that it did not yield the robust consensus

[10:41] officially claimed.

[10:42] Three-fifths of its nearly 160 initial volunteers quit, many feeling hurted, only 30% endorsed

[10:49] part and a handpicked 10% endorsed all of its findings.

[10:53] Nearly as many citizens opposed them, including two previous airport directors, former county

[10:58] commissioners and top local pilots. So it's that basic lack of consensus despite tightly controlled

[11:04] information and process that's why we are arguing now.

[11:15] In folks assume we have no choice

[11:16] because the FAA has originally mandated a new airfield for beer planes, and that has never been

[11:21] true. Of course, the FAA would like bigger planes for what it calls greater access, more planes

[11:27] and more kinds. A goal, curiously, not in its mission or objectives. Bureaucracy's love standardization,

[11:33] The FAA likes to retire layout exceptions where it can, and rarely makes new ones, but

[11:38] there is no mandate to eliminate them.

[11:40] And we couldn't.

[11:41] Aspen has 85 of them, and many unfixable.

[11:44] The aviation mantra standardization equal safety is valid for and borrowed from operations,

[11:51] but it doesn't fit our airport layout situation.

[11:53] Our airport is necessarily unique.

[11:56] Now, the FAA is constrained by both law, including its own rules, and politics, legally it's

[12:03] on thin ice. It can choose to modify design standards when justified by unusual local

[12:11] circumstances and acceptably safe. It must conform to local laws and regulations which

[12:17] are themselves an approved basis for modifying standards. Bittkin County citizens may soon

[12:22] clarify those rules.

[12:25] Aspen is United's most profit-intensive airport nationwide, as the state's third busiest airport used by many of our nation's most wealthy and powerful individuals vital to a community with exceptional political influence.

[12:42] With the FAA then really choose to block runway reconstruction to achieve trivial business jet access gains not requested by our airlines, offering no material safety benefits

[12:52] and inviting a potent political and perhaps legal backlash.

[12:57] I think rational adults would rethink.

[13:00] There is ample discretion in rationale for a reasonable resolution,

[13:03] such as occurred three decades ago when the FAA wanted to abolish

[13:07] our night curfew, but backed off.

[13:09] A reasonable resolution was reached.

[13:11] Of course, we had different commissioners then.

[13:14] Now, much does depend on the attitude of the powerful FAA,

[13:18] although we learned in 95 that its edicts can bend to political realities.

[13:24] 18 months ago, the regional manager, John Bauer, addressed the BSEC and his sole public

[13:29] appearance here.

[13:29] And I asked him, if the county stops asking for bigger plans, can it keep the present

[13:35] airport layout, modification standard, 95-foot wingspan limit?

[13:39] He twice said yes, but we would lose future discretionary grants.

[14:29] Well, I meant to play the other one first anyway, what do you want me to do, this

[14:47] one?

[14:51] What is that?

[15:15] Sorry. I'm going to have to repeat those because we didn't have a sound on in your system.

[15:21] So

[15:29] I was saying before, could you keep it the 95% of the restrictions that I think would have been fairly clear?

[15:35] We would possibly have done so with your funding to run.

[15:39] That's how we run down.

[15:41] So the extra county decided that it wanted to wait.

[16:05] So could you keep it the 95% of the restrictions that I think would have been fairly clear?

[16:16] So what you said before.

[16:17] Could you keep it the 95-fold-leads-guaranteed chance?

[16:21] Where are you going onto the next slide?

[16:24] And what you've said some were,

[16:26] is that could you keep it the 95-fold-leads-guaranteed chance?

[16:29] I think I've been fairly clear that the case is in the problem

[16:32] we have got to share.

[16:35] That's good news.

[16:36] I don't know funding.

[16:36] So the commission decided that it wanted to wait

[16:41] and not go straight away for bigger than 95-fold-leads-guaranteed chance.

[16:49] We could keep what we've got and continue the end of the list, is that correct?

[16:55] Yes, but there's caveats in there, right?

[16:57] I mean, we've talked about it.

[16:58] We're not going to provide anything other than your entitlement for any of that.

[17:02] So, yes, those are all decisions that are the county's decision to make.

[17:08] Thank you.

[17:09] And I'm afraid the two were playing on top of each other, but at the beginning of the second one,

[17:13] And he would, I talked about, are you going to revoke our modification of standard?

[17:19] He said no, I said that was good.

[17:22] Now, in a later visit to FAA headquarters, John Peacock asked more senior FAA officials

[17:30] what they wanted, but he left out the if part of my questions.

[17:35] That of course elicited the opposite answer and deceived commissioners into assuming that

[17:40] Mr. Bowers double offer here of FAA policy was wrong or overruled and they've

[17:46] dutifully ignored it ever since. But before I explain why we don't need his

[17:50] grants, let me briefly address the scary threats we hear of what the FAA could

[17:58] do if we resist. Expansionist threat and clawed back old grants, a downgraded

[18:04] airport that punishes us for not allowing bigger planes by restricting us to

[18:07] smaller planes. At a prohibition on simultaneous use of the runway and taxiway, that would dramatically

[18:15] cut peak capacity. Those threats are all fake. Mr. Bowers specifically dismissed the first

[18:21] two in the same recorded BOCC remarks. The third one is an indirect way to achieve the

[18:27] same aims as the second. It's even more hostile to the FAA's own core goals of safety efficiency

[18:34] and especially access.

[18:37] Now, any of these extraordinary actions would require an elaborate process triggered by an egregious violation of law or rule that no one is proposing.

[18:47] Importantly, the FAA has made none of these threats as the county and its surrogates falsely imply.

[18:54] They were all made up by the county and its consultants to scare people.

[18:57] The FAA is powerful, but it's not unconstrained and it has rules.

[19:04] I think the way you tell its fake is that the FAA is not making the threats and it's the only one that could carry them out.

[19:12] But does our airports still need the discretionary grants it would lose by not letting in bigger planes? No.

[19:19] And that free money from all federal taxpayers comes with significant costs and risks.

[19:24] Each grant locks in another 20 years of the FAA behavior that so troubles them now.

[19:29] and now the imminent billion dollar FBO deal comes in time and in size to make

[19:35] that substitution work. In March our financial analysis found that the

[19:41] proposed hundred plus million dollars or more of FAA grants being urgently

[19:45] sought and now driving frantic county policy are not actually needed.

[19:58] Our April

[20:00] The county pleads poverty. It's about to sign this billion dollar contract with Atlantic Aviation for another 30-year monopoly on the FBO serving private planes. The county's cost estimates show that its bigger airport would cost about $335 million, minus $195 in federal grants for a net of $130, formerly $219, suddenly changed.

[20:27] FBO fees could pay the $8 million a year debt service with $15 million a year left over.

[20:34] On the same county cost estimates are better airport with no grants because no bigger planes and $88 million lower construction cost the county tends to ignore would cost $247 million with annual debt service of $16 million on the same bond terms.

[20:56] The 29 million of annual FBO fees that Mr. Peacock revealed September 10th could

[21:03] aptly fund either approach and then of course Atlantic's 54% higher offer

[21:08] than we assumed plus lower interest rates made our findings even more

[21:12] conservative. Well now the county is hoping for this 29 million a year of average FBO

[21:18] revenue expects plus nine figure FAA grants. If they get both then even if

[21:25] the total cost rose to, say, a half billion dollars, debt service would become only 13 million a year on their plan.

[21:32] And the expected FBO fees could pay it with about 20 million a year left over.

[21:37] But airports are not allowed to accumulate a big surplus and their income must all be spent on the airport.

[21:42] So they drown in money and have to slash fees promoting still more growth.

[21:47] Perhaps that's why the county is now lobbying to remove that federal restriction.

[21:51] So those airport surpluses of about 20 million a year could be spent elsewhere.

[21:56] That makes this an awkward time to claim they can't afford to patch the runway.

[22:01] Now the county's five attempts to discredit our financial analysis showing the grants aren't needed,

[22:07] cited in the readings page in your packet, all crashed when they ran out of truth.

[22:11] We use their own numbers, or arithmetic, is not an opinion.

[22:15] Their fifth strikeout on September 10 claimed FBO revenue could support only a third

[22:21] of the bonds that our better airport would need, and we're about to publish a response

[22:26] to that.

[22:27] They reached this conclusion by assuming it, without logical evidence, the consultant assumed

[22:33] high-risk, high-cost, highly-restricted junk bonds as if not adding bigger planes somehow

[22:38] must add huge financial risk.

[22:40] They ignored the airport's dozen risks, reducing attributes, many of which the county

[22:45] touts for its bonds.

[22:47] They ignored the nine proposed credit enhancing measures that our five expert advisers thought

[22:52] adequate to achieve investment grade.

[22:54] So the county would structure its bonds for a 5% rate and probably a AA rating.

[23:00] Its hit job consultant assumed high risk and bad design to make our bonds unratable and

[23:04] update the half percent.

[23:06] Mr. Peacock at all seriously misrepresented many other aspects of our analysis.

[23:11] I think all involved in that exercise should be embarrassed.

[23:15] So what should the POCC do?

[23:18] The 8 April update and strategy letter in your packet suggests a sensible way forward.

[23:25] It's like this.

[23:27] Except Mr. Bowers offer that you sort of sawdust just now on videotape,

[23:32] basically they keep their grants we keep our lab.

[23:35] Propose a new layout plan to rebuild the runway where it is at our own expense as soon

[23:39] as they let us, making the FAA responsible for any delay.

[23:43] Move ahead, briskly, to design a great new terminal and all the financing,

[23:50] offer to resubmit the valid original forecast if needed for a consistent record,

[23:55] stop the disinformation campaign, and start rebuilding public trust.

[24:03] We can then thank the FAA for continuing to keep us safe and politely decline its undesired

[24:08] services as aspirants developer in chief.

[24:10] Could they refuse?

[24:12] Yes, but they're also bound to respect local laws and rules, so if the voters change

[24:17] those, the FAA must change too.

[24:19] And our commissioners who all say they don't want bigger planes could make it so.

[24:24] Investing our own money at our own pace would regain planning independence from a vitally

[24:28] safety-skilled federal agency that cares only about aviation and seeks to impose its one-size-fits-all-growth

[24:34] ambitions on our valley without regard to any of our constraints, needs, or conditions.

[24:40] Preserving our half-century of thoughtful growth management would be a giant step toward protecting our

[24:48] home, our community's character and values, its real estate value, and our quality of life.

[24:54] One last thought, when we choose is as important as what we choose.

[25:00] It's unwise to make big airfield choices in this decade because urgently seeking those aspiring federal grants risks building the wrong thing when we're in the middle of aviation's latest revolution in history. Russian airfield decisions is like accelerating your car into a snow squad. It's really prudent to slow down until we can see where we're going. United's recent order of planes that we were told didn't exist has secured commercial service now for decades, fitting our airfield.

[25:30] and with better heveonics. That's good. So there is no need to rush and every

[25:36] reason to wait while we rebuild the runway and the terminal. We have plenty of

[25:40] time to let the aviation revolution unfold and learn what we really need. And

[25:45] now, thanks to the vast FBO windfall, what just in time we have the solid

[25:51] revenue to afford, especially if the people and elected officials like you get

[25:56] informed and weigh in. Thank you.

[26:02] Thanks, Amy. Chuck, you have a follow-up?

[26:24] You want me over here?

[26:25] Yeah, no, that's not great.

[26:28] Sorry, I was wondering if

[26:32] Chuck is I liking him.

[26:33] It was green. You hear me?

[26:35] Yes. Good.

[26:36] I'm also going to do this for myself.

[26:42] All right, this should work.

[26:44] My name's Chuck Butler.

[26:46] I am a snowmass village resident.

[26:48] So I have attended a number of these meetings virtually,

[26:51] And I can't thank each one of you enough for what you do and your time here today,

[26:56] especially as it's campaign and election season.

[26:59] I don't envy any of you now that I've gotten a taste of what we're doing here.

[27:03] So, thank you.

[27:06] I am one of the founding,

[27:10] you click on that mouse just once.

[27:20] Yeah, I am one of the founding members of our report, our vote.

[27:24] So this started as a conversation over a year and a half ago with meeting some of our

[27:30] friends at Aspen Flywright and suddenly getting sort of a new generation of locals politically

[27:38] interested.

[27:41] We are, I'll say long time locals, I think that's very fair, the core group that was involved

[27:47] as citizens against bigger planes and then ultimately stuck with us and are now in for

[27:53] the long haul with our airport, our vote, our part of a grassroots movement that had

[27:59] like true organic growth.

[28:01] I say this, we volunteered our time, not one local involved in this is being paid

[28:08] for their time, their booths on the ground, and I think this is because people care, people

[28:12] are interested.

[28:14] We got involved because it didn't feel like the Board of County commissioners were hearing

[28:17] what we were, what was being said at meetings, and we were strongly encouraged from people

[28:22] on both sides to get involved.

[28:25] And so that's why we're here.

[28:27] Some of you may have met me in the streets

[28:30] as over 30 of us circulated petitions in July.

[28:36] And we came back with over 1200 signatures.

[28:39] I think it was 1200 and three.

[28:40] Might have been 1200, 1200, 207.

[28:43] Thousand on the nose were verified by the county clerk.

[28:47] And we very proudly were able to put this on the ballot.

[28:50] the first ever citizen led initiative of a change to the home rule charter.

[28:55] Do you want to bring up the home rule charter for one second?

[28:58] Some people in the community have criticized why we went that path, why we went that route,

[29:03] on legal advice from numerous legal sources, and in doing a lot of research.

[29:08] Enough, no up or down vote that we could come up with was legally enforceable.

[29:13] So changing the legal charter to put this in, put a matter into the hands of the voters,

[29:20] was was the best path forward,

[29:26] excellent thank you so where we stand on the

[29:30] airport I think this is important for me to clear the air on this we're for

[29:35] every positive change at the airport any the airport layout plan checks every

[29:42] box except for this this disagreement we're talking about it's about the

[29:46] separation so I mean so it's so it's clear and on the record for this this

[29:52] Council and for anyone listening, we know the runway is failing and we want a new runway.

[29:57] You know, we want to receive the FA file.

[30:00] If that conversation can be had, and if the Board of County commissioners can represent this community, the way that many think it can. If that's not the case, I'll defer to what Amory said, and a lot of his research and studies and findings and presentation for breaking down those numbers. The elephant in the room and part of this conversation is the billion dollars that is set to come in, and it's plus minus, but I'll say billion dollars, that's set to come in via Atlantic.

[30:30] over the next 30 years.

[30:33] We are for a safer, cleaner, you know, better, modern airport.

[30:38] Nobody, it's an incredible amenity, we're lucky there's another ski town in this country

[30:43] to my knowledge that has an airport less than half a mile, end of a runways, less than half

[30:49] a mile from a ski resort.

[30:50] That's just incredible.

[30:51] So we're lucky to have that and, you know, to say, for people to say that we want this

[30:58] to go away, we want commercial service away, it's simply untrue.

[31:00] We want the best for the community.

[31:02] And I think what really got a lot of us passionate about this is that we want the community to have a say.

[31:12] That leads us to the ballot measures.

[31:15] So there's two ballot measures, as you know.

[31:18] We represent 200 and 200, I can tell you I've been walking, I've been going door to door, I've been part of our street team.

[31:27] And last night, I spent my time just near your neighborhood and behind the rodeo, in a stallion circle, I guess it's the neighborhood.

[31:37] What we are hearing and what people agree with and the reason we did this is that question 200, it blocks out the noise.

[31:45] This has nothing to do with the runway growth.

[31:49] So this is everything to do question 200 does about giving a voice to people on runway decisions and what the future of this valley might look like.

[31:59] That's the question, that is what it says on question 200.

[32:03] And this empowers, and we believe this, this empowers the Board of County Commissioners to speak on behalf of this community with the FAA.

[32:11] And I know there's been a process, I will credit to Jackie Francis and to everyone who involved in that.

[32:18] But we've heard now time and time again, whether it's from Mayor Tory and Aspen, or any of a number of members of that group, of that board, the vision committee, sorry, that it was flawed, and I will leave it at that.

[32:36] I'm aware of our time, so I do want to, you know, I'll be quick, and I'll hand it off to the next group.

[32:42] One C is reactionary and problematic and it would have been great if it was simply a discussion over 200.

[32:53] We are now talking about one C and we have a position asking people to vote no on one C.

[32:58] This is asking the residents of Pick and County to vote away their right on the airport, on airport matters.

[33:06] This is a historical right, the residents of Picken County have voted on this airport four times.

[33:13] And so again, you're asking to turn away this right, a historical right, and ultimately hand this off for the rest of the time.

[33:22] This doesn't get undone.

[33:24] Our group thinks this puts special interest and growth ahead of community input.

[33:30] And I have a legal memo here, which I'm going to hand to each of you for a review later, we won't be reading this together.

[33:37] But I do have a memo from a legal team from Mark Ruskin and one of his partners, Nate Bruggeman,

[33:48] one see the way it's worded and if ultimately put into place it risks violating the home

[33:58] rule charter as well as the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution. So I'll hand

[34:05] that out here in a second.

[34:08] I want to leave you with the thought we appreciate it is a hectic

[34:12] time of year, the election is a time of year that tensions are high, half of our friends

[34:18] and family are on vacation, we've got spring fall break coming up, people are in and out

[34:22] of town, this is an incredibly challenging time to be engaged, active, I appreciate everybody's

[34:29] time, I hope everybody gets out and votes, and I hope that they can take a moment to read

[34:35] and understand what these ballot measures are truly about, what they're saying, what they're

[34:39] asking people to do, and if 200 prevails, and we then go to what would probably be a special election or an election at some point in the near future with specifically an up or down on the runway.

[34:56] If the people speak, you know, we win or lose.

[35:00] So that's all we're looking for. And so I appreciate your time. I appreciate the community's time. And yeah, thank you so much. Thank you, Chuck. Thanks, Amy. I have a few questions. Yeah, I think everyone's going to have a couple questions.

[35:16] Thanks, Chuck.

[35:20] So I'm curious to know how you see the process happening.

[35:27] So, there was clearly a citizen's advisory board that has been involved for over the last couple of years and it was an extensive effort.

[35:49] 200 pervails. Do you see that process happening again?

[35:55] We will then create another visioning committee to sort out the future of our airport.

[36:03] And so we're on the same page.

[36:04] He cannot answer any questions about the ballot, or about either ballot measure.

[36:09] So if 200 prevails, I would envision that the existing airport layout plan,

[36:17] the current, the one that is currently on its way through the approval process that that would get put to a vote.

[36:22] So they are calling for a 400-foot separation.

[36:27] That would be what, with our verbiage, would get put to a vote.

[36:33] Does that make sense?

[36:34] Yeah.

[36:36] Yeah.

[36:37] Now, so I do follow the airport advisory board.

[36:41] I and two of my director colleagues sought membership on it, but we're turned down.

[36:47] And I continue to follow it.

[36:49] It is notably not reviewed, not discussed, the major critique I did on the forecast, they

[37:00] simply voted without paying attention to it.

[37:05] And the same has been true for other sizable pieces of careful evidence submitted to it.

[37:12] I don't think that's wise.

[37:14] I don't think it leaves the members as well informed as the BoCC needs them to be.

[37:19] And I recently had to actually

[37:22] and monitor my friend Dan Bartholomew

[37:24] for saying some ridiculous things

[37:27] about advanced airplanes.

[37:31] I had just as it happens,

[37:33] lectured on that subject at Stanford

[37:35] where the two top arrow professors

[37:37] were there and found no errors.

[37:42] And I really was embarrassed

[37:45] that the AAB members,

[37:47] members, many of whom are dedicated and very competent are receiving wrong information

[37:53] and the public is unable to correct it by process design.

[37:57] So I think in principle, it could be a very valuable organization, but

[38:02] it's not there yet.

[38:03] It needs to be more independent and follow a really proper process of weighing all evidence.

[38:11] So, every year a consultant, I heard you say the other night you've been a consultant for 50 years.

[38:18] The county brought in a number of consultants on this project as well.

[38:24] You just don't agree with those consultants, is that right?

[38:29] Not generically, some of them, I think, did a good job and are very capable.

[38:34] Some others, I was not impressed with and I would not have hired them.

[38:39] But I think these matters should be settled by reason based on evidence and documentation.

[38:45] That's what we provided and whenever we criticize the consultants or anybody else's findings

[38:52] If you go to our thousands of hours and hundreds of pages of research all online

[38:58] You will find them laid out in proper scientific fashion. I'm a scientist by profession. I

[39:05] hope it's not immodest to say that

[39:09] Stanford's

[39:10] Scopus analysis just placed me in the top two percent of the world scientists

[39:14] I take my professional obligations as a scientist seriously, and when I see error, I try to correct it.

[39:23] When I see truth, I support it, that's my job.

[39:29] Okay.

[39:32] Tom, you had a question?

[39:34] Yeah, I have a couple questions.

[39:36] I fully appreciate how complex this is.

[39:39] I spent 18 months on their board vision committee and list meetings.

[39:47] So I understand the basic technology that we're talking about, I'm also an architect

[39:54] to understand how things lay out.

[39:56] type, a couple really simple questions, Amery for you.

[40:00] And if you can be simple answers, be really helpful. So, say we build, we all agree the runway has to rebuild. The ground under the runway is failing. It has to be rebuilt. And the only question is whether they build where it is, 320 feet of separation, or move at 80 feet, centerline 80 feet. That's the only issue we have here. So, and I think it was unexpected, but wonderful that they found the Embryer 170 feet.

[40:29] and they juiced up the engine so it can operate here and they're coming here in December and they're going to operate for 15 or 20 years, whatever the lifetime of that is.

[40:41] So, if we build a new runway in the current location and commercial aviation will be using the E175 for 15, 20 years, whatever the lifespan you know is,

[40:56] The runway last four year, 50 years, what happens if when the Embraer can no longer operate

[41:07] here, and the new planes that come out, and I know we don't know this, but the new planes

[41:13] come out and they don't have smaller wingspan, but they have larger wingspan than the 96 feet

[41:21] that were allowed today, it would be allowed at the runway. Where are we at then?

[41:28] Then we get to revisit the question based on the actually longer than 20, normally 30

[41:35] or 40 plus year development of aviation since then. Now my own professional opinion, closely

[41:43] following that world is that by then it will be a completely moot question because the very

[41:53] efficient electric planes, not necessarily with longer wings, will be cheaper to buy and

[41:59] cheaper to run.

[42:00] And I didn't hear what you said.

[42:01] They're going to be a shorter wingspan to longer wingspan.

[42:03] Some will be shorter, because some will be longer.

[42:08] Some will be longer.

[42:10] longer is the classical design solution.

[42:13] Right.

[42:13] Until about four years ago,

[42:15] that was thought to be the only design solution.

[42:17] We now know it's not because of actual flight testing

[42:21] and further development of other types

[42:23] that can have shorter wings,

[42:25] can fit our airport,

[42:27] and can have comparable capacity and range.

[42:31] And those are emerging incredibly quickly,

[42:33] on roughly the same time scale as a whole new airport by the way.

[42:40] So, because the new planes by very wide opinion in the profession will be generally cheaper to buy and to build than fueled planes, including the better ones proposed here like the 2-2100, I think the fueled planes in the time frame you're describing will have been really struggling to compete.

[43:06] And we'll be well underway in getting replaced by planes with enormously lower noise emission

[43:15] and pollution than any field plane can be.

[43:19] So that was really speaking, you don't exist yet, right?

[43:23] There's not nobody's come up with a prototype yet.

[43:28] No, that's not correct.

[43:29] In fact, there are 80% of the world's top 25 aerospace companies are involved.

[43:37] There are many prototypes.

[43:38] I was just looking at one in Sweden a couple of weeks ago, just the day before it's anger

[43:44] rolled out.

[43:45] That one does happen to have longer wings, some others do not.

[43:50] Some I can talk about, some I can't, but it is a whole petting zoo, which is featured in

[43:57] in my latest Stanford lecture that's online.

[44:00] If you go to our essays, essay five, go two things later,

[44:04] you'll find something called fossil free flight

[44:07] that gives you a lot of the supporting detail.

[44:10] It's moving incredibly quickly,

[44:11] but you're speaking correctly to the last point I made

[44:15] about its important, not just what we choose,

[44:18] but when we choose.

[44:19] We don't need to make that decision now

[44:22] about whether to bring in bigger planes.

[44:25] And I'm saying it's unwise to do so, and we have time to make that decision.

[44:30] So now we should rebuild the runway where it is, taking much more care with the geotechnical stuff.

[44:36] Any of the old cowboys would tell you that's a wet meadow with three streams in it.

[44:40] And it wasn't designed to build properly for that.

[44:43] So that's got to be done right.

[44:45] I hope the FAA can help us with that.

[44:47] But then we're set on commercial traffic for decades.

[44:52] You can argue about how many decades, meanwhile the aviation revolution unfolds, the fog

[44:58] clear the mud settles.

[45:00] And we get to make wise decisions based on what we then move this along just because we have got a lot to do tonight. Let me ask. Also, a simple question. If we do move the runway. What are in your mind? What, what, what will be wrong? I mean, what, what, what, what, what, what are we worried about a year after it's completed?

[45:28] five years after it's completed, 15 years after it's completed.

[45:33] I mean, what is it that we are so worried about if we build this bigger runway?

[45:39] Because we know we're not going to have larger commercial planes for 15, 20, or 30 years, as you said.

[45:44] We're going to operate the 175.

[45:49] So just tell me really simply, 15, 15 years.

[45:53] What are we worried about?

[45:55] But just to be clear, many of the super-efficient and electric planes are being, are

[46:02] adoring service in this decade and even some in the next few years, the smaller ones.

[46:08] So they are not 20 or 30 years out.

[46:12] No, but I think that, I can't speak for Sky West, they've just invested in all these new

[46:17] Embryer 175s.

[46:19] They're not going to throw them away in five years.

[46:21] They're going to operate them here unless there's some really strong reason not to.

[46:25] I'm saying there will be strong economic and impact and other reasons to seriously consider whether to keep operating let alone

[46:35] Well, that's great. I mean that they bring in more efficient quieter planes. That's all better

[46:41] I'm that they could operate down any of the runway. So that's the point. What's wrong with moving the runway?

[46:47] Let me take it on three levels. First of all

[46:51] Risk management is about minimizing regret at what you did you wish you hadn't, or what you didn't do you wish you had.

[46:59] So you're asking me to look back from that perspective.

[47:04] And I would say one of our regrets could be that we wasted $88 million in a lot of hassle.

[47:12] building an airfield design for airplanes that are no longer the future of aviation, but we'll be getting faced out.

[47:21] But let me just stop you there because I don't mean interrupt.

[47:25] But moving the runway 80 feet, center line, is not going to change the operation of the runway to slow slightly larger planes.

[47:36] And other than that, it's not, in any way, changing, as you said, the operation of the airport, as opposed to if you keep the runway or it is.

[47:45] Well, according to the county's budget estimates, it actually does incur an additional $88 million or so numbers of causes of airfueled cost of other kinds moving other stuff around.

[47:58] Okay, I didn't want to get into the cost.

[48:00] I'm trying to talk about practical physical things.

[48:03] So there is significant money involved.

[48:07] Secondly, by moving the runway, we would have opened up the airport to all kinds of airplanes

[48:15] up to 118 foot wingspan.

[48:18] Anything that can get here, there might be a weight limit, would be able to.

[48:23] We couldn't stop it. We couldn't ensure any of the outcomes we wanted.

[48:28] There are arguments about what the net effect is and the answer is nobody can know.

[48:34] But we do know that under the county's plan, that is the airline planes that it expects to operate and not counting any private ones.

[48:44] Yes, 8 to 20.

[48:45] It's uncertain.

[48:46] Yes, yes.

[48:47] And later, the design.

[48:49] Yes, the one there.

[48:50] The objective plan is 8 to 20, whether or not it ever shows up.

[48:53] Setting the 300, we're designing around, including all those and looking at how many fly in which year according to their approved forecast.

[49:01] that's the environmental table I showed showing that all six of the

[49:07] environmental goals in the court community thing flunk. They are not satisfied

[49:13] as the advertisements say and that's why I think the posted airport modernization

[49:21] goals drop those 30% drop goals. They're not in there anymore. There's only a vague

[49:27] goal so any improvement is a win and sufficient. I don't think that's what the

[49:31] community had in mind. I'm still not hearing just sort of a clear answer that

[49:37] if we build a bigger runway we're going to get 2737's landing here every week or

[49:44] so. I'm not hearing that because we can't tell there are many hundreds of shall we

[49:50] say offensive or unsuitable big old dirty noisy planes in private ownership. Some

[49:56] of those owners would like to come here. It's not just the 737.

[50:00] There are quite a few other types, but all those types were lumped together in one category that the forecasters did not detail. So we couldn't tell how many they expect to come. So it's on the private side. That's all on the private side. And, you know, because he couldn't operate a big plane fully loaded with commercial pastors, they can't operate here, right? Well, probably, if you have six pastors on, you can land one. Probably not, but I think one of the points missed in Bill's comparison, which has 13 slides on.

[50:29] and airline 737s, nobody's worried about,

[50:32] and one really sketchy slide on the private ones

[50:36] that everyone should worry about.

[50:38] He didn't mention that the private ones

[50:40] are usually much lighter, and that means more kinds

[50:44] can come in, than could if they were commercial.

[50:46] Thanks for spotting that.

[50:48] And I think just to tack on to that,

[50:51] we're talking about lighting a runway

[50:53] for a handful of newer cleaner planes

[50:55] and leaving the back door open to these, you know,

[50:58] It does in hundreds of planes that will be dirtier, older, and louder.

[51:03] And I think from a commercial side, we know that A220 Delta has those.

[51:08] Sky West United American do not, from what we know, plan to fly those in anytime soon.

[51:14] I will defer to someone like Bill or someone else who has maybe a little bit more expertise on that.

[51:21] But that A220 is, I think it's 109 seats.

[51:25] There's also talk of more directs from elsewhere, so that could, we could see a gain there.

[51:31] I don't want to linger on that too much.

[51:33] I do think to simplify it, a wider runway means more planes.

[51:39] More planes, no matter how you look at it, means more people.

[51:42] And that will then add to any of the number of the challenges that we've talked about, whether it's, you know, travel and housing.

[51:49] They were switched to the A220 instead of the MBR175.

[51:52] We have a lot quieter, less polluting planes.

[51:56] And then there's no question we can get some like 220s quieter and in some respects environmentally better but not nox planes.

[52:09] At the same time, however, unavoidably we would get other private kinds of planes we don't want that are worse and

[52:16] Nobody knows what the balance will be.

[52:19] Okay, thank you.

[52:20] I mean, he did touch on it and we need to move on, thanks a lot.

[52:23] Yeah, so I mean, I guess to your point, Chuck, there's only a certain number of operations that can happen an hour, right?

[52:31] So we're not guaranteed to have more flights.

[52:34] And may I just one last thought then?

[52:36] So I think the number one threat to commercial service is widening in the runway, which allows for more planes.

[52:43] We have 83% private service right now.

[52:44] Commercial planes don't get priority on landing here.

[52:48] I think with more private planes landing here, coming here of this runway being available to them.

[52:54] We risk seeing that commercial service, go down to, I don't know what the numbers are but.

[52:59] All right, thank you, I want to make sure that we're keeping an eye on our time here.

[53:04] So I mean, I think it's safe to say there's a fair amount of speculation going on here.

[53:08] There's a lot that we don't know, and we should provide a lot of important information.

[53:13] there's a lot to unpack there, and Chuck, I appreciate what you had to say as well.

[53:19] So thank you guys for coming.

[53:20] I think we need to provide the other side with an opportunity to present their case.

[53:25] But again, I appreciate you guys being here.

[53:27] Thank you for asking and let me compliment this group because this is actually a more substantive discussion than any other elected body in the valley has held with us.

[53:39] Thank you.

[53:39] Thanks for that.

[53:41] Thank you.

[53:42] You're here.

[53:42] Appreciate it.

[53:43] Thank you.

[53:44] Thank you for coming.

[53:45] Thanks.

[53:45] George and Michael.

[53:58] I could start by Michael sending out.

[54:01] Okay.

[54:01] For the record, I'm George Newman.

[54:04] I'm a former Picket County Commissioner.

[54:06] Actually, George, why don't you just hang on the second sore.

[54:07] Make sure everybody can hear what you've got going.

[54:14] Great.

[54:15] Thank you, George.

[54:16] Go ahead.

[54:16] I'm a former Picket County Commissioner.

[54:18] It has been involved with the airport.

[54:21] for the 12 years that I served, I was involved with the runway extension, the 2009.

[54:28] The reason that runway was extended, safety.

[54:31] I was involved with the 2016 airport layout plan and also the latest one.

[54:39] So I just want to go back to the future for a few minutes here.

[54:46] 2016, we approved an airport layout plan submitted to the FAA and it was approved.

[54:53] Then went through the normal public process, just like the public process that you go through with any.

[55:00] Any issues that come before you? At the end of that process, we started to get some feedback from the community saying that they did not really understand what was happening. And they wanted to be able to take a step back and get more involved and get more information.

[55:18] We asked the FAA if we could do another process to look at a community-based process to develop a new airport

[55:34] The FDA had never heard of any community doing such a process just in terms of trying to update an airport layout plan, but they gave us permission to do it, which was great.

[55:48] So then what we did was we sent out information anyone who was interested in serving on this new process to get involved.

[55:57] Well, some of you were involved.

[56:01] We had over 120 citizens representing a cross section of the entire, not only entire

[56:07] art community, but also from the Valley, going for Valley.

[56:10] They worked hard diligently for over 16 months.

[56:15] They were able to learn, to ask questions, to educate themselves from a variety of experts

[56:23] that we brought in from around the country concerning all types of import operations.

[56:30] In addition, we also have one group, we have five different groups, we have one group

[56:34] that just dwelt on the idea of community character, and how would the airport layout plan

[56:41] that they were discussing impact effect be positive or negative for the community.

[56:47] And that was an important component.

[56:49] So,

[56:52] unprecedented for the FAA, unprecedented for, I think for any elected body in the Picking County, whether it be Snowmass Village, City of Aspen or the Board of County Commissioners, we have never, I've never seen a process, a community process that involved so many people took so long, has so much information provided to them.

[57:16] And out of that process came over 50 recommendations that were labeled the common ground recommendations that were presented to the board of county commissioners, I was on the board of that time.

[57:31] And we accepted those recommendations and passed that airport layout plan onto the FAA.

[57:37] today. Now, as what was discussed already, some of the main components of those over

[57:44] 50 goals led to four or five top goals. We've heard it, but I'll repeat it. Safety

[57:52] was number one. I improved the safety of our airport and our airfield. Second was to

[57:59] reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants by at least 30%. Third was to reduce noise

[58:06] raised by at least 30 percent.

[58:09] Fourth was to develop an interconnected mass transit system

[58:12] between the airport, aspirin and snow mass

[58:15] that would take vehicular trips off the highway.

[58:20] And last was to manage implements by our values

[58:25] from our community.

[58:27] So this was not a county plan.

[58:31] This was and is a community plan.

[58:34] build up from the bottom up by the community and for the community.

[58:43] Michael will sort of, Michael will talk about a lot of the things that go went into that

[58:49] plan and certainly will be able to diffuse some of the statements that you've heard today.

[58:55] In the last one, I just want to say because there has been a lot of misinformation presented.

[59:01] Whether it's been on purpose or not, I'm not going to say.

[59:04] But that last slide was really indicative of how misinformed they are presenting to the community.

[59:16] So the last slide talked about

[59:23] the, that the thinking County Board of County Commission's

[59:29] validation was unlawful when against a home road charter and even unconstitutional.

[59:36] Well, if some of you saw today's Aspen Daily News,

[59:42] Picking County Commissioners refuted that statement. And I'll just read that to you if you haven't

[59:48] seen it. Picking County Commissioners reject the recent claim by the group R Airport R vote

[59:56] That's a language.

[1:00:00] Of the ballot question, one C is unconstitutional. The language of one C, which reaffirms picking counties' authority to implement a plan to make safety and other improvements to the Asmond Picket County Airport, was thoroughly researched and legally vetted before it was placed on a ballot. The language is legally sound, and the county stands behind it.

[1:00:29] The public should know that the argument that one C is somehow unconstitutional or violates

[1:00:36] the county home rule is without merit.

[1:00:41] That's just one example of the misinformation that's being presented to you.

[1:00:45] This is a simple presentation.

[1:00:51] It's not a lot of mumble jumbo, it's not a lot of numbers, it's just straightforward,

[1:00:56] or factual and we'll be able to respond quickly

[1:00:59] and officially to any questions.

[1:01:01] So I'll turn this over to Michael now.

[1:01:05] So your microphone on green light?

[1:01:08] Oh, it was a light green.

[1:01:10] No, it's a breaky, yeah, all right.

[1:01:14] So I'm Michael Miracle.

[1:01:15] I'm here on behalf of a whole lot of people

[1:01:17] for a better airport.

[1:01:19] And I'm gonna, there's some redundancy in some of what

[1:01:23] I'm gonna flash on the screen and what George said.

[1:01:25] So I'm gonna try not to repeat things.

[1:01:29] But as Amory pointed out, we are all in agreement on many things, and I want to try to speak

[1:01:38] to you as elected officials who are responsible for managing the well-being of A-town, and

[1:01:45] you've been elected to do so, and I think you do an excellent job.

[1:01:49] This is fundamentally a conversation about failing infrastructure.

[1:01:54] structure, and I'm sure you know that fixing infrastructure is not easy.

[1:02:01] The last major airfield in terminal upgrades were over 40 years ago.

[1:02:07] Our part is out of date, and we all agree, all parties agree on that now, but I want to

[1:02:14] be clear about something.

[1:02:15] That was not always the case.

[1:02:18] This idea that everybody is agreeing on everything except for the runway widening and the runway

[1:02:24] taxi separation is not true. I was on the Community Character Working Group, Tom, you

[1:02:31] were on the Vision Committee. This attrition and this lack of faith and this criticizing

[1:02:38] of the process that you're hearing, there's a reason for that. That's because there were

[1:02:42] a lot of people who were part of that process who were dug in at a hard no to everything

[1:02:49] on day one. No new terminal, no new runway, CRJ 700 can continue into the foreseeable future

[1:02:57] and by that they meant decades, not forever but decades. Over time, everyone more and more

[1:03:04] people became aware that, oh, actually we did a terminal tour. The terminal needs to be replaced.

[1:03:09] Then it became, do the terminal not the runway. This has been a slow evolution to this level of

[1:03:15] consensus that we're at now, where there's only one point of disagreement, but the reason

[1:03:20] that there was a trition during the common ground process is because people realize that the

[1:03:25] node at everything position was untenable so they dropped out.

[1:03:32] And I want to speak to just a couple more things in the process, one of which is this fleet

[1:03:45] The FAA requires that you do a forecast, a defensible forecast, angry questions, the validity

[1:03:52] of it, that's fine.

[1:03:54] The thing that I think is being confused here is that the forecast is in many ways being

[1:03:59] presented as if it's a goal, like that we are striving to achieve the FAAs accepted

[1:04:06] forecast numbers.

[1:04:07] As a reminder, the community proposal was a 0.8 percent growth.

[1:04:12] We went as a community as low as we reasonably could, and the FA said, that's too low.

[1:04:19] That's indefensibly low.

[1:04:21] So what the forecast is, it's not a goal, it's a forecast, it's a tool that allows you

[1:04:27] to plan in a reasonable and responsible way for the future that could potentially come.

[1:04:33] But to represent it like we are all striving for that level of employment increase and it's

[1:04:40] attempting that the FA is forcing that down our throat and there's some degree of inevitability

[1:04:45] to it is not true, it's not a goal, it's a tool to plan responsibly with.

[1:04:54] on the question of funding, this is a reason to do this.

[1:05:00] Now, this is, there is an urgency here because big federal funding sources are expiring. It's not about chasing money, it's about being financially responsible. You have to do this, everyone agrees, you have to replace the terminal in the runway. Why not take free money to do it? And I'll speak to the FBO as well, but just to be clear, that the county brought in consultants to analyze various financial plans.

[1:05:30] I think it's a bit outrageous to imply that they're all lying or wrong because why would

[1:05:39] they do that?

[1:05:40] What is their motivation?

[1:05:41] Again, as elected officials, I would hope that you would hear those kinds of accusations

[1:05:47] against your fellow elected officials with a bit of a cringe because I think that you bring

[1:05:54] in consultants to try to understand things all the time and you probably you may ask questions

[1:05:59] but you take them on their merits. And then on the idea of funding this via FBO revenues.

[1:06:08] First of all, the consultants analyze that and said that the county does not have the bonding

[1:06:13] capability to use that revenue to bond at the dollar amounts that they need to to spend

[1:06:18] the kind of money that you will need to spend on the terminal and the runway.

[1:06:21] I think the second more perplexing aspect of it is that it is using the FBO as your

[1:06:30] principal funding mechanism ties your funding source to the thing that the

[1:06:37] opponents say they want less of which is private planes. So if you're saying

[1:06:43] let's fund it over here from this source that is the thing we want less of it

[1:06:49] It makes it a lot harder to kind of pursue a getting less of it, which you really can't

[1:06:54] do in any way because the FAA has a strict non-discrimination clause.

[1:07:02] So on this funding, because this is a critical component, and Tom, you brought that up, I think,

[1:07:08] and some of your questions.

[1:07:10] The FAA has categorically stated in writing to the county that without an approved airport

[1:07:17] layout plan, they will no longer provide any grants for current needs or future needs

[1:07:24] for the airfield or the terminal period. The contract that the county is currently

[1:07:31] working with with Atlantic has some big numbers. However, Atlantic has in that contract written

[1:07:41] that if the county does not abide by the FAA's rules,

[1:07:48] in terms of standardization, those dollars will be reduced substantially, substantial.

[1:07:54] I just clarify, ask a question for clarification.

[1:07:57] You say standardization, does that mean moving the runway?

[1:08:01] Is that a requirement for the FBO?

[1:08:04] It's a requirement for the county to receive money,

[1:08:07] And it's a requirement that the FBO has put in there that if the county is not in accordance with the FAA's

[1:08:18] standardization measures

[1:08:20] that

[1:08:21] Atlantic will reduce the amount that they're

[1:08:25] They're contract to arrange for the county. We just I'm sorry. I don't want to disrupt you, but

[1:08:31] You said we need to get an approved airport layout plan. Correct

[1:08:35] will the FAA approve an airport layout plan that does not move the runway? Do we know yes or no on that?

[1:08:43] Let me take this just because here is a direct quote from a letter sent by John Bauer this summer not going back to April 2023, a more recent correspondence.

[1:08:54] The FAA will not approve any future ALPs that do not meet the 400-foot runway taxiway separation standard.

[1:09:01] period. Pretty clear. Yeah.

[1:09:06] And if same correspondence, if ASE, the Aspen Airport,

[1:09:12] chooses to reconstruct the runway in its current location, the modification of

[1:09:16] standard will be terminated, and the county will no longer have an approved

[1:09:20] LP. So it's pretty unambiguous, I think. That is me reading direct notes that way.

[1:09:27] Yes. Okay. Um, and the reason that they are so digging dug in on this is because of safety.

[1:09:36] That this idea that they're trying to force bigger plans on us is simply not true.

[1:09:42] They're doing away with with modifications to standard because there actually is a

[1:09:47] an aspect to standardization that is good. Uh, you know, I liken it to a basketball hoop.

[1:09:52] You go to every basketball arena in the NBA and the hoops 10 feet tall and you know you can go through

[1:10:00] Are you free-throw motion and head of free-throw? By being fully to ADG-3 standards, we will have the dimensions of other ADG-3 runways, and it makes it more predictable. The pilots know what they're doing better. They're landing on an airfield similar to the one they've landed elsewhere. A 150-foot wide runway is safer. There are less excursions off the surface.

[1:10:29] side than 100 foot wide runway.

[1:10:32] We are now, these Embraery 175s have 95 foot wing spans.

[1:10:39] That's 95% of the 100 foot wide runway.

[1:10:42] And when we go to 150 feet and we have an 118 foot maximum, that is a smaller percentage

[1:10:48] of the runway that that plane will be taking up and the same is true for the runway taxiway

[1:10:53] separation. They

[1:10:54] want more room for the planes to land on and they want the planes to be further

[1:10:59] parts so they don't bump into each other, which happens.

[1:11:02] It happened in Atlanta a few months ago where a plane's whole tail got knocked off because

[1:11:07] they ran into each other like this.

[1:11:11] And you know, every mention that there are 85 modifications to standard at the airport,

[1:11:16] that's true.

[1:11:17] And there are some of them that won't go away despite the FA wanting to get rid of the modifications

[1:11:23] to standard.

[1:11:24] But their number one and two priorities, they're sort of non-negotiables are safety and access.

[1:11:34] So those are the two things they're not going to let you do.

[1:11:37] They're not going to let you violate their safety standards.

[1:11:40] Amory's right, the airport is not currently unsafe, but it can be made safer.

[1:11:45] And the access question, you know, the community produced a recommendation

[1:11:52] that really did try to limit growth and limit future fleet mix in a way that the FAA said,

[1:12:00] that's just too obviously discrimination.

[1:12:02] But as it turns out, we don't need to worry about it that much anyway.

[1:12:07] And I'll explain why.

[1:12:10] So, these goals George mentioned that reduced greenhouse gases,

[1:12:18] is net zero terminal, greener planes,

[1:12:21] and then a few more direct flights.

[1:12:24] Something that hasn't come up today is,

[1:12:28] and again, Amory took the time to figure this out

[1:12:30] in detail, and that is to recognize

[1:12:34] that there is a 98% correlation between bed base

[1:12:38] and employment.

[1:12:40] So it's fairly understood and accepted

[1:12:43] that bed-base is the ultimate governor of tourism volume.

[1:12:49] And on this managed growth question, you know, he asks if jurisdictions are going to

[1:13:00] be able to regulate short-term rentals.

[1:13:03] That's a question for you guys, and I think if you want to, you can.

[1:13:07] The City of Aspen has done it.

[1:13:09] But Glenwood Springs started digging in and regulating short-term rentals in 2012.

[1:13:17] And in two years, they reduced the number of short-term rentals in their community by 30%.

[1:13:21] It can be done, communities do it all over the place.

[1:13:24] We are having sensible conversations about bed-based in this community.

[1:13:28] And the idea that the airport modernization will lead to a proliferation of short-term

[1:13:35] rentals that no jurisdiction can control is speculated and it's demonstrably false because

[1:13:43] jurisdictions have regulated them.

[1:13:48] On the question of plain size, both commercial and private, so we know that the immediate

[1:13:59] term future plain is going to be the Embraer E 175.

[1:14:04] It doesn't meaningfully move the needle on climate and emissions.

[1:14:09] There's a slightly better on one, slightly worse on the other.

[1:14:14] But it doesn't move it towards our goals.

[1:14:18] That A-22100, Tom, that you mentioned, that's the plan that the whole common ground recommendation was aiming at.

[1:14:25] Delta is all in on this plan, so it will come here.

[1:14:28] They'd be flying it here tomorrow if they could.

[1:14:30] But 109 passengers is nine passengers more than the BA-146, which served this market for a long time.

[1:14:38] You want to explain what that plane was? That was the plane before the current CRJ.

[1:14:43] So it was coming to this market, so nine more passengers.

[1:14:46] But this Airbus A22100 is the quietest plane flying in the United States,

[1:14:55] It's quite a commercial plan, excuse me, flying in the United States today.

[1:15:00] I won't pull it out and read it to you, but the mayor of Newport Beach, California in 2019 sent a letter to Delta Airlines. This is a community that suffers from quality of life, impacts from its airport, noise and emissions, and have been trying to figure out how to deal with that for a long time. This mayor, a woman, she wrote a letter to Delta Airlines, profusely thanking them for bringing the A22100 into the community.

[1:15:27] She said it was a cause for widespread celebration and that they would be sharing the news far

[1:15:32] and wide.

[1:15:33] That may not be a perfect direct quote.

[1:15:35] On the big private question, you don't actually have to engage in wild speculation as

[1:15:41] is being done on this because there are other airports that have very wealthy communities

[1:15:47] that are currently fully airport design group 3 that these planes could be landing at.

[1:15:52] So if they were out there and the numbers you are being told, they'd be showing up at

[1:15:56] Jackson and great numbers and they'd be showing up in Vale at great numbers, but they're not.

[1:16:01] So the same thing that is happening with the commercial aircraft is happening with the

[1:16:06] private aircraft, which is over time they are going to get quieter and cleaner.

[1:16:12] And then in terms of like no one is really arguing that the big commercials are going to come

[1:16:17] because they just don't make economic sense for this market.

[1:16:20] But you could get the occasional, you could get some direct flights from East Coast cities

[1:16:26] that are currently aren't served from us, say New York and D.C., but from a climate perspective,

[1:16:32] that is a big win. New York is one of our top two markets already. They're coming here already.

[1:16:39] They just take a two-leg flight from through Chicago through Denver to get here.

[1:16:43] By eliminating one of the takeoff legs, which burns a disproportionate amount of fuel for a flight,

[1:16:49] right, you reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of that total travel substantially.

[1:16:58] So, you know, this does sound like a really shocking kind of like, you know, worst-case scenario

[1:17:09] this could happen.

[1:17:12] But this, so, Emily put up a few things, the downgrade airport design group 2 could have

[1:17:19] if we don't have an approved LP or this sterilization, but again, John Bauer said, if you choose not

[1:17:27] to reconstruct the runway in its current location, the modification to standard will be terminated.

[1:17:32] That then could set off a sequence of events because the 95-foot wingspan restriction

[1:17:38] is no longer enforceable because it's tied to that modification to standard, which allows you to have

[1:17:44] with 320-foot separation between runway and taxiway versus the 400-foot.

[1:17:51] So it could go away and John Bauer has alluded to this.

[1:17:55] He has set it to the county.

[1:17:57] It has come up in multiple public meetings.

[1:17:59] Bill Tomsich and Dan Bartholomew talked to you about it when they presented here.

[1:18:04] That would mean that any design group three plane up to 118 feet could land at the airport,

[1:18:10] but only if the taxiway, the airfield is sterilized,

[1:18:16] which would mean no planes on the taxiway

[1:18:19] and it would dramatically reduce the air traffic volume

[1:18:23] and would really do real demonstrable harm

[1:18:28] to any aspect of your community

[1:18:32] that depends on regular visitation.

[1:18:41] And just, do you want to take this, we'll make you go on.

[1:18:44] Oh, you're on a roll.

[1:18:48] If one see passes, it just reauthorizes the county commissioners to be able to do the

[1:18:54] thing that they do.

[1:18:55] And Bill, you asked a great question of, okay, well, if you get 200 and not one see, what

[1:19:01] do you do?

[1:19:03] Well, you would say, okay, well, how do we get something that the community would be

[1:19:07] okay with?

[1:19:08] and that the FAA is going to potentially agree to.

[1:19:11] You would do, the best way to do it would be

[1:19:15] to do the exact same thing that we just did.

[1:19:18] Would be to bring people together,

[1:19:20] roll up their sleeves, try there as hard as they can

[1:19:23] to come up with a values informed proposal

[1:19:27] and then do your best to see it through.

[1:19:31] So there is, to me, I'm sorry to say,

[1:19:34] But this is like, this is kind of a stop the steel sort of thing, which is a very public

[1:19:41] process unfolded. It was, as George said, incredibly community informed.

[1:19:47] All of the concerns were raised. They were addressed. I was in the meetings. I watched it happen

[1:19:53] to say that they were just dismissed or that some corrupt consultant just, you know, gave the answer that

[1:20:00] Who ever wanted to hear? The commissioners really tried hard. They all ran on slow to no growth platforms, right? Nobody's banging the drum for growth here. And then the airport opponents did not get the outcome that they wanted. So they said we want to do it again on different terms and we're going to go a direct democracy route. But you're going to have to get an approved LP somehow. And if you want it to be community informed,

[1:20:29] You know, it would be smart to support the community informed one that is trying to make

[1:20:34] its way through the process right now.

[1:20:39] So the idea that was presented, why don't we just pause this, why don't we just start

[1:20:45] a whole another process, like Michael said, why don't we try to figure out how the county

[1:20:51] is going to try to pay for a new airfield?

[1:20:57] because it won't be coming from the Feds, from the FAA.

[1:21:02] Bonding, the counties are going to be limited.

[1:21:04] They may be able to come up with a way to bond long term

[1:21:09] just to restructure the airfield, but that's it.

[1:21:14] There won't be any money for ongoing maintenance.

[1:21:17] There won't be any, certainly no money for a new terminal,

[1:21:19] modernized terminal, which the entire community wants.

[1:21:23] All of you flying to fly out, you've got family flies

[1:21:26] to fly out, you guess, you know what it's like in a winter time when flights get canceled

[1:21:31] what that terminal looks like, it's completely outdated, it needs to be modernized.

[1:21:35] We have the ability, we have the ability right now to be able to utilize some additional

[1:21:43] money that the FAA has another bucket of money from Biden's Infrastructure and Inflation

[1:21:51] Reduction Act.

[1:21:52] There's money there that can fill the gap between the 10% that the FAA will provide for the new terminal and the cost of that new terminal.

[1:22:00] Those funds go away in 2026.

[1:22:03] The county's already lost the opportunity for the first round.

[1:22:07] And in fact, this past year, last May, when the county had to do some bandage work, they could utilize FAA grants.

[1:22:16] And that's that came out of the airport revenue fund of the cost of about $7 million.

[1:22:22] Next May, the airport is going to be closed for an additional week, longer to, again, do some band-aids.

[1:22:29] That money has to at this point come out of the airport revenue fund because the FAs are going to fund it.

[1:22:36] So it comes down to safety, it comes down to modernization, it comes down to funding, and it comes down to timing.

[1:22:44] snowmass you've got a growing thriving community your bed bases growing the

[1:22:51] airport is a key gateway to your community for yourselves for your friends for

[1:22:56] your guests it's you know the airport is an integral part of the

[1:23:01] economic and social fabric of your community why wouldn't you want to look

[1:23:06] towards the future and ensure that your community has that ability to maintain

[1:23:11] they continue to thrive and continue to grow.

[1:23:15] It's not rocket science, you don't have to be a natural physicist, it's just common

[1:23:21] sense.

[1:23:23] And I think, you know, some of the, maybe some of the instinctual pushback that you

[1:23:28] hear on the airport chuck kind of spoke to a little bit, which is just, we don't need more

[1:23:34] of anything that it's going to lead to more.

[1:23:36] And, you know, as I said, bedbases is the established, understood governor of visitor volume,

[1:23:44] but then let's ask ourselves, how could things maybe be made better by the airport?

[1:23:49] George alluded to this idea of transit connectivity, but for me, this has been the one that I've

[1:23:54] been most excited about all along, which is currently fewer than 5% of people who use the

[1:24:01] airport, use public transportation to get to and from Aspen and Snowmass.

[1:24:05] There's a reason for that. The buses are luggage incompatible. It's out on the highway. It's poorly signed, right?

[1:24:12] But we know, you all know, Alyssa really knows because she works as an ambassador helping people find their way getting off the buses,

[1:24:19] that we have a highly

[1:24:20] transit-cultured visitor base. We have an incredible head start on people's willingness to get on public transportation,

[1:24:28] possibly for the only week in their lives while they're here and get to the skieries.

[1:24:33] We know that they do it all winter long from to get to and from the skieries.

[1:24:38] It is not in any way unreasonable to think that if we had a great transit system that was

[1:24:42] luggage compatible, or that where you could check your luggage all the way through to the hotel,

[1:24:47] which is in the common ground proposal. That is one of the many, many excellent ideas

[1:24:54] that is in this community-generated document. Then you just get on to the bus with a care

[1:25:00] All right, let's carry on and you get into Aspen, you might need to take a downtowner to get to your Airbnb or whatever. But that's, we're thinking 20, 30 years into the future. There's going to be autonomous vehicles. This is the future we want. And to try to say, let's slow it down. Let's hold off on embracing the future is the very definition of shortsighted.

[1:25:30] Thanks, guys. Appreciate it.

[1:25:32] I think one of the really important keys to this is both the funding and the safety.

[1:25:43] I mean, Amory gave us some good numbers, but from what we've seen from John Peacock,

[1:25:52] he's very clear about the bonding and how much funding we can actually get for the airport.

[1:25:58] You know, it's clear we could either do the airport or the terminal, but not both.

[1:26:05] The runway or the terminal. Sorry, the runway or the terminal.

[1:26:10] And so, and I think it's really, I hate when anybody wants to make a decision based on fear.

[1:26:18] Like if we're just afraid of something because of something that could potentially happen,

[1:26:23] And I don't think we're making a rational decision coming from the right space.

[1:26:33] Sorry, go ahead, Sue.

[1:26:35] Interrupt.

[1:26:36] No, go ahead.

[1:26:36] Go ahead.

[1:26:39] Because at this point, to me, what kind of eye question is, if the county commissioners

[1:26:51] are, and the original community-based process was so valuable and really willing to listen

[1:27:02] to all of the community voice, why there's concern about having a vote by the people

[1:27:10] to accept the airport layout plan.

[1:27:14] Well, they're not, I mean the public has the ability to vote.

[1:27:19] The Board of County Commission has put that on a ballot.

[1:27:23] But it's to give them the power to do it themselves.

[1:27:26] Not for the community to actually look at the plan and approve it or not.

[1:27:33] The community has had a chance to look at the plan and they have the opportunity to vote on it on one C.

[1:27:39] They could support one C, or they could vote against one C.

[1:27:42] in the community then has had that opportunity to vote.

[1:27:47] It seems like that if you vote on 100, then that gives the community the right to vote.

[1:27:59] And that one C gives the commissioners just more power.

[1:28:04] It doesn't give the commissioners more power.

[1:28:06] It reaffirms the power they already have.

[1:28:08] As a sponsor of the Picky County Airport, having received hundreds of millions of dollars

[1:28:15] in grants over the last 40 years, they have obligations because of those grant assurances.

[1:28:22] And they are liable legally if they don't fulfill those obligations.

[1:28:27] So it just reaffirms.

[1:28:29] Now, if the community doesn't like that, they can vote down on it.

[1:28:35] Frankly,

[1:28:38] the commissioners had put the ballot on first, we would have only had one up

[1:28:43] and down vote, I'm sure.

[1:28:46] The opposition wanted the commissioners to put one on, and frankly they didn't do it,

[1:28:53] they should have, in my view.

[1:28:55] So 200 says we want the ability to vote and so you passed 200 and now you still have

[1:29:05] another vote.

[1:29:07] One C gives a public the opportunity to vote up or down right now.

[1:29:13] And just just just as a reminder which may not be all that public they had a calm in

[1:29:19] the Aspen Times.

[1:29:20] But the Pick and County Democrats, you know, this is voted their board of directors, voted

[1:29:26] unanimously to say no to 200 in very strong terms because they don't view it as particularly

[1:29:35] pro-democracy and there and that there is no alternative plan on the table. It is not

[1:29:44] about giving the people the right to decide on the on the airport. It's about slowing this process

[1:29:50] us down. It's about saying, I don't believe in representative democracy to arrive at

[1:29:58] any...

[1:30:00] Good answer to a complex question that a very large group of people spent a tremendous amount of time working on.

[1:30:11] Can I ask a question?

[1:30:17] It's all pretty simple. We all know we need a new terminal. We all know we need a new runway. It's a question of where the runway is. That's what we're talking about. Now, can you shed a little light on?

[1:30:30] I mean, Emery says, you know, the FBO contract over 30 years is going to generate a billion

[1:30:35] dollars, and we can pay for everything.

[1:30:40] And the county is saying, well, we can pay for, if the FBO revenues would pay for the

[1:30:49] runway or the terminal, we can't do both.

[1:30:53] Now personally, I like here we say, but personally, I mean, I like free money, you know, why would

[1:30:58] you use all your money when somebody's going to give you money.

[1:31:01] But just explain to me the difference.

[1:31:04] Clearly, you know, bright people on both sides.

[1:31:08] What is the discrepancy?

[1:31:10] You know, Emory's group says, yeah, we can find it all

[1:31:12] in counties saying we can't.

[1:31:14] So, where is the discrepancy there?

[1:31:19] Well, I'll start.

[1:31:20] The discrepancy is that, again, they, I don't,

[1:31:25] I have not seen a contract.

[1:31:26] They certainly have not seen a contract.

[1:31:28] But the county has just given Atlantic an extension to work out the contract and see what this vote is going to be because if the vote goes in favor of the opposition,

[1:31:41] Atlantic is going to reduce the amount that they're going to grant to the county substantially.

[1:31:50] So the county staff, their professional staff, their finance committee, their airport aviation consultant group out of Chicago have gone through the numbers, looked at all the alternatives and told the county this is what you're able to do and this is what you're not able to do.

[1:32:13] So I don't know those exact numbers, but I know that the county's airport revenue that

[1:32:20] they generate could not cover the debt service on a bond for the amount that is needed.

[1:32:28] I mean, I defer to the analysis that was done by real professionals who I am not going

[1:32:36] to sit here and call corrupted.

[1:32:40] I mean, I guess it really comes down to representative government.

[1:32:44] I mean, this is a complex issue, and there's been a lot of people who spend a lot of time on it, and

[1:32:50] the reason why we elect officials is so they can dig into it and

[1:32:54] really get the best solutions for the community.

[1:32:59] And so I think that it's important that the commissioners have that opportunity to represent the people.

[1:33:07] You represent your constituents, your constituents of the Board of County Commissioners, the Democratic

[1:33:17] Party, when we talk to the chair, they were not as concerned about the airport, what they

[1:33:24] were concerned about is representative government.

[1:33:27] And to start to put a wedge in a home root charter by adding an amendment to sort of work the

[1:33:34] way through legally in terms of trying to get this petition forward, they didn't buy it.

[1:33:40] And I don't buy it either. You either have a representative government elected by the

[1:33:47] people, for the people, or you have a direct democracy where every issue is just throws

[1:33:53] out on a boat.

[1:33:54] Did the local Republicans have an opinion on this?

[1:33:58] They are supporting one C as well and opposing 200.

[1:34:02] So they're the same as the Democrats.

[1:34:05] Yeah, it's like the one thing both parties are going on.

[1:34:08] Right, agree on it.

[1:34:09] And no surprise, of course, the Aspen Chamber Resource

[1:34:12] Association representing the business community is supporting

[1:34:17] one C opposing 200.

[1:34:22] Snowmass doesn't really have a chamber.

[1:34:25] So I don't know how you can get the business community to provide

[1:34:31] that input, but I'm assuming that the business community is as concerned whether it be the

[1:34:36] lodges, the retail, even the service, because they will all be either positively affected or

[1:34:43] negatively affected? I just want to add on Akra, you know, that people might hear that and be like,

[1:34:48] well, of course, they're supportive. They did extreme due diligence on this. They did not come to this

[1:34:55] decision reflexively in any way they did a

[1:35:00] Number survey, they went and did door-to-door meetings. And if you look at their release that describes their endorsement, why they're no-on-two. And there's a data set that's attached to it that is all the survey results, including all of the comments made by their businesses. You can see that they did not arrive at the decision reflexively, but it is overwhelming. It's like 80% in favor.

[1:35:29] of moving forward with the approved ALP.

[1:35:34] Well, we're going to have a presentation that we're going through our budget.

[1:35:39] And some of us village spends about $9 million a year to attract people to this village.

[1:35:45] So we're heavily invested in the tourist-based economy.

[1:35:51] So there's a lot of people out there saying they're concerned about growth.

[1:35:58] and we are as well.

[1:36:00] We want to make sure that some mass villages inviting.

[1:36:03] We have just one more question about growth.

[1:36:06] I think when you were mentioning that the growth projections

[1:36:12] were not goals, that the growth goal was actually

[1:36:17] like less than 1% is that?

[1:36:19] Yeah, so there was a growth goal

[1:36:23] that came out of the original common ground,

[1:36:25] the citizens product that was then, and that goal was 0.8% per year, and then the FAA basically said

[1:36:36] that is an unrealistic goal based on your past growth rates. So just for your forecasting tool,

[1:36:45] it has to be more realistic and I think it ended up being 1.3. Still on the low end of what they

[1:36:52] considered their acceptable range but but I again I want to emphasize that it's

[1:36:58] not a goal it is it is a forecasting tool so and they just said you know it's

[1:37:04] like if you're gonna buy a house for your daughter you say like how big you

[1:37:08] think your family is gonna be like like you're gonna have at least one kid we

[1:37:13] hope but probably not ten and like so let's get you a three-bedroom right like

[1:37:18] It's just responsible thinking about the future, looking at the past as a kind of a,

[1:37:26] you know, to identify some trends lines for what you might see, but it's not a goal.

[1:37:32] And was there any conversation about how to keep it to that lower percentage?

[1:37:39] Yeah, sorry, thank you, we should have mentioned that.

[1:37:42] So one of the pieces that's in the plan, the common ground proposal, is this idea of flexible gates, which so currently the airport has eight gates, but the new terminal would have eight that could flex down to six so that if a larger passenger plane came in, a gate would effectively shut down, which would sort of help keep that employment number at a lower rate over time.

[1:38:10] And it was, again, you know, in terms of like really, really taking this growth question

[1:38:16] and this, you know, sense of overwhelm that people are feeling very seriously, basically

[1:38:21] they said, how many ways can we come at attempting to control growth via the airport?

[1:38:27] And there are certain aspects or certain tactics that the FAA just would not allow for, like

[1:38:32] the blatant discrimination on aircraft side or proposing a growth rate that they just didn't

[1:38:39] meet their standards.

[1:38:41] So the flexible gates was one that's making it through.

[1:38:44] And it's a win for people who are concerned

[1:38:49] to grow out about growth, which is everyone.

[1:38:51] There's nobody banging the drum for lots more people.

[1:38:54] There just isn't.

[1:38:55] Well, that's interesting,

[1:38:56] because you hear about the FAA won't let you limit

[1:38:59] the number of flights, right?

[1:39:02] But they will let you limit the gates.

[1:39:06] It appears to, right.

[1:39:07] Right, the county has the ability in the terminal to limit the gates.

[1:39:11] And the gates is a misnomer because right now there are no gates, there's just some painted lines.

[1:39:16] The new airport layout plan has real gates just like you would see a DIA.

[1:39:23] So then the county then has the ability to either remove a gate, close it down or expand a gate.

[1:39:32] So that, that, that is an important guard wheel and that's part of the airport layout plan that's in front of the FAA right now.

[1:39:41] Interesting. Thanks.

[1:39:43] Okay. I want to be fair to both parties so we provide the same amount of time.

[1:39:48] Just closing comment. Go ahead.

[1:39:50] We have got, we support from our elected, from all of our elected officials up and down a valley.

[1:39:57] Every mayor has support of this, except...

[1:40:03] So, we ask that you join your other fellow elected officials and pass resolution, supporting

[1:40:11] one, see, thank you.

[1:40:13] Thank you so much.

[1:40:14] Thank you.

[1:40:15] Thank you very much, everyone.

[1:40:15] Can I make one quick comment?

[1:40:17] So, I am so grateful for all these conversations, and we're so blessed to be in a community with so

[1:40:25] many individuals that are engaged and engaged in intentional organization and just engaged

[1:40:31] in the thought process and reading everything that's out there and available.

[1:40:35] And I do highly appreciate all the elected officials and their input and all the individuals

[1:40:41] that have put in time to create these informed organizations around this topic.

[1:40:47] What I really look forward to seeing from everyone is the healing process after this ballot

[1:40:54] issue goes one way or the other. So I look forward to seeing how we're all going to come together around that.

[1:41:01] That's a wonderful note to end on. I promise you I'll be part of that.

[1:41:07] Thank you all. All right, thank you. Thank you.

[1:41:15] Okay, so great conversation, good information, appreciate all that.

[1:41:22] We do have the Aspen City Council, the Picken County Commissioners, the Mayor of Glenwood,

[1:41:30] Carbondale, and Basalt are all supporting one C.

[1:41:39] I would like to see the Snowmass Village Council also support one C.

[1:41:45] I don't think we can do that today, though, we're a work session, right?

[1:41:49] You can't vote if there's a direction to vote for resolution to do that.

[1:41:54] What I'm suggesting is we have a resolution drafted for consideration at the next council meeting.

[1:42:00] I'm

[1:42:04] willing to have a resolution drafted but I would like to take the next week to really think about the statements that were made tonight and hear from others in the community.

[1:42:14] Great.

[1:42:14] I agree.

[1:42:16] Got more to process now.

[1:42:18] Okay.

[1:42:27] Please do send us an email and you can find that at TOSV under the government section contact the council.

[1:42:35] Council at TOSV.

[1:42:41] You should have a recording available directly as soon as tomorrow.

[1:42:46] It's about, it's less than 24 hours.

[1:42:52] before next week.

[1:42:56] Monday. Sorry. Week from today. Yes.

[1:43:01] Four. Four o'clock. Yeah. Well, probably before that to get it in the packet, right?

[1:43:05] Well, if you would like your public comment included in the packet, I would need it by Wednesday afternoon at the closed business so that I can include it in the packet on Thursday.

[1:43:17] All right. Thank you all very much. Thank you. All right. Moving on.

[1:43:23] And our next topic on the agenda is we're going to have a discussion about our mall transit

[1:43:33] center and some potential improvements there.

[1:43:36] Sam, welcome.

[1:43:38] Hi.

[1:43:41] Can you share my screen?

[1:43:47] Right.

[1:43:48] There we go.

[1:43:49] Let's come up.

[1:43:51] Hi, Sam Moreno, Transportation Director.

[1:43:53] We've also got Alex Jock with SEH on the line.

[1:43:58] If you all remember this summer, we came to discuss going to the public with the designs

[1:44:04] that we had so far, some strategies around how we might engage the public to get some

[1:44:10] feedback on what we had during that meeting.

[1:44:13] Mayor Madsen brought up a thought for another design for us to look at.

[1:44:20] Council agreed that it was worth us taking a look at.

[1:44:22] So, we took it back to SEH to make sure that it was something that would be possible for us to work with.

[1:44:31] This design here, as you see, is the existing Lot 6.

[1:44:36] The green buses are village shuttle buses.

[1:44:39] This would allow us to have six village shuttle bus bays with exterior loading.

[1:44:48] They would be going in through that lower entrance and out through the upper entrance.

[1:44:54] It would also have two spots for buses to be staged.

[1:44:58] The turning movements work.

[1:45:00] It is a possibility that we could look into this design. There would be some questions, of course, around pedestrian flow. If it was a direction that we'd like to go. There, you'll see this drawing here has a pedestrian underpass suggested that would go into where the elevators had been shown in previous plans to get people across the street without having to interact with.

[1:45:29] vehicles.

[1:45:33] So I'll stop there and ask you guys how many questions about this design?

[1:45:36] Just two questions. Yeah, go ahead. And this assumes, you know, leaving RAPTO

[1:45:41] on or doing the incremental improvement. This assumes the incremental

[1:45:45] improvements. And the second question is, what do you do with the 54 cars from

[1:45:50] lot six? Well, and I, so I think, and this is a question that we had not yet

[1:45:55] answered on the two level design either, which is, I think, why we wound up

[1:45:59] with coming up with this Lot 6 design.

[1:46:03] If this is the spots in Lot 6 are a challenge that we're

[1:46:09] going to have to meet, whether it means they go away,

[1:46:12] or they need to go somewhere else, both the two level design

[1:46:16] and the Lot 6 solutions have that same problem.

[1:46:21] So that's what we thought would make sense to bring to the public.

[1:46:25] So what are your, you guys recommendation?

[1:46:27] We had a, I'm sure the public would like to have those.

[1:46:30] Yeah, probably, yeah.

[1:46:31] So I mean, where are the options?

[1:46:34] You know, we haven't delved too far into what a design for more parking spaces could look like.

[1:46:42] I mean, the obvious first option is to not replace the parking spaces.

[1:46:47] But like you say, public probably wouldn't be super happy with that.

[1:46:50] I think that you've-

[1:46:51] We're talking a lot.

[1:46:52] In the drawings that we received from you, Councillor Fritzstein, you had some suggestions for some covered parking in Lot 5, and I think that there was even one that had covered parking in Lot 4 as well.

[1:47:06] So that's a possibility, although it does add structures to the numbered lots, that we've gone with an idea of what it is.

[1:47:14] I don't think I would add to this is this lots is the two strengths, the two level plan are kind of apples to apples.

[1:47:19] They don't, they both lose the same amount of parking.

[1:47:22] And so I understand, but I'm just a question of what, yeah, so we're, I mean, that's why, I mean,

[1:47:28] our initial recommendation was start, start with the rafta and that when molded in the two level was solved it.

[1:47:35] And in order for what we're recommending tonight is, let's take this out, get public feedback and

[1:47:39] That's how much that matters, the loss of the parking.

[1:47:43] And then whether it's just the initial plan, we can get that feedback and see how you all want to proceed.

[1:47:49] But we haven't solved both, all three or two of these three options lose the same amount of parking.

[1:47:57] I mean, I'm really not wild about anything that we're looking at right now.

[1:48:02] My initial reaction was that maybe this could be another solution if we're okay with giving up the parking.

[1:48:11] But the more I looked at it, I'm just like,

[1:48:14] just the pedestrian access is not great.

[1:48:20] At us was really to try to answer some goals, right?

[1:48:24] Reduce the duration of construction.

[1:48:29] Reduce the impact for sure.

[1:48:32] How do we put all the pedestrians and the buses in one place,

[1:48:37] so that getting on public transit is easy and how do we build it so that, you know, it's a pedestrian first type of infrastructure.

[1:48:51] And some of the thoughts looking at these different designs was, I mean, should we be prior to be station there, or should that be,

[1:49:02] Even we have about equal number of transit uses on each, right, 640, 640, 640, 640, that's off the cuff, but in the vicinity, I mean the, the village shuttles can operate in a much smaller space than the raft of buses.

[1:49:22] if we were going to turn...

[1:50:00] Buses around. Maybe it's better to focus on turning the shuttles around, and have the raft of buses go through lot six.

[1:50:16] The attorney radius is just looking at it. I think it would be a real challenge for the raft of buses. I don't know that specifically, but it doesn't look like it's going to work.

[1:50:25] So, you know, and I kind of thought the same thing, but in the design, for the two-level design, we have the road going down and around and through the bottom a lot, six.

[1:50:38] So, is that a better use of space if we have, you know, public transit, raft to getting picked up, lower, you know, maybe.

[1:50:52] And I'm just kind of throwing it out there to think about because I just want to make sure if we're going to go about this, we can do it in a way that is really,

[1:51:09] it kind of tackles all those goals that we wanted to achieve.

[1:51:13] And I think we kind of got there with the original plan, but we're, you know, we got clear message from the planning commission that it was too big of a piece of infrastructure.

[1:51:28] So I don't know. I don't feel like we're there yet, but I think there's something there's something that we can do.

[1:51:41] And I think that's kind of where we're saying, let's start with input.

[1:51:44] I mean, because I don't know, and I mean, if that idea, the raft idea comes out in

[1:51:49] lot of six, then let's hear that.

[1:51:52] I mean, I don't want to speak too much for staff on, I will.

[1:51:55] I guess they will take the pleasure of doing that for things like, something.

[1:51:59] That's why that incremental step is something, and then the, in my mind,

[1:52:03] the question is, and then in light of what's next after that is not known yet.

[1:52:07] I think we all agree something, but is it in light of the next step in the two levels, the solution or the lot six solution or some solution we haven't heard from yet?

[1:52:16] But we want to make sure whatever gets designed for that first step accommodates suggestions.

[1:52:21] I would suggest before we went to the public that we would really think all these through and have an answer like to the 54 cars of lot six and things like that.

[1:52:32] That's number one, number two, because if you go with, you know, incomplete information, you're not going to get clear answers and things are going to spin around.

[1:52:47] We're going to have some different makeup of Council in three weeks and I would, this is sort of our aspirin airport issue, and I would just suggest that we, it's good to see all this, but I, I was just, we don't take any action until we know what we're doing.

[1:53:02] know what the new council is and there may be some new opinions and I just don't think

[1:53:07] we should jump into something now because we're going to have a new council that's going

[1:53:12] to be in place for two years that will have to deal with whatever this is.

[1:53:20] I'm concerned about going too deep into another study even though without a study we really

[1:53:26] don't have the information we need to address what you're suggesting the user experience

[1:53:31] and the opportunities to try various options.

[1:53:37] But I wonder too, if it isn't worth sharing just these very preliminary concepts with

[1:53:45] perhaps planning commission in the interim as opposed to getting another study going.

[1:53:51] And just see what they might think, because we've got some good minds in the room and they've

[1:53:55] looked at many transit options for many years.

[1:53:57] So perhaps without spending money on another study, they could kind of look at this and because it's a new idea and it's worth married and it's worth exploring.

[1:54:10] And while we're looking at potentially a new makeup of council.

[1:54:16] I would say planning commission and the public. I mean, I don't know what else we need to be able to.

[1:54:23] that what other information we need right now

[1:54:27] to get public feedback, honestly.

[1:54:29] I mean, because I think they're, I don't know,

[1:54:34] but probably gonna look at it in a more big picture scenario.

[1:54:40] And so they're gonna weigh the things that we already know.

[1:54:44] Like it's gonna, you know, a plan will shut down the road

[1:54:50] for a period of time we kinda know how long

[1:54:52] That's gonna be we know we know a lot of stuff because we've gone through this and these are just some some

[1:55:02] I would just add to that, because if I was the public, the first thing I'm going to ask is, where's lot six? And I think we have to have an answer. We need to, what's the first thing you're going to ask? Where's lot six? What happened where I parked my car? So we need to have an answer to that, or we may have some options or something. But we just can't go and say, oh, we haven't thought about it. You know, I think we have one more question.

[1:55:29] Today there is no federal money to build a parking lot.

[1:55:32] What's it?

[1:55:33] There's not federal money, so it would be, we're going to put that money towards it to, I just don't see how we can.

[1:55:40] Can you park where the village shuttles are now?

[1:55:43] You could.

[1:55:44] I mean, I think, I mean, you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, the shuttle out to the lot six is to provide for

[1:55:49] the redevelopment of the mall, so yes, she could, but I don't think that's going to achieve that goal.

[1:55:54] But can I ask a question, Susan, just a thought?

[1:55:58] So public outreach versus things, I kind of see those as different.

[1:56:03] I mean, I agree we need both for sure, but perhaps business and stakeholder meeting could

[1:56:07] happen first.

[1:56:08] Yeah.

[1:56:09] Because that's a little more big picture and maybe they've thought through some of the public

[1:56:13] without the answers to a lot of imperative questions.

[1:56:17] Well, and really those were the, I feel like the voices that we heard about the previous

[1:56:23] this transit center plan were planning commission

[1:56:27] and the businesses.

[1:56:28] So I think that's logical.

[1:56:30] But a lot of the businesses we didn't hear

[1:56:31] from until the 11th hour, which was not so.

[1:56:34] Which is why, you know, getting that buy in now

[1:56:36] or at least opening that conversation now,

[1:56:38] I think this is a great way to start.

[1:56:42] I think what def differentiates lot six

[1:56:45] from the rest of the lots is the fact

[1:56:48] that people can easily park in those lots

[1:56:51] and then go into grab something at a restaurant or at a store and so you lose

[1:56:57] that sort of timed parking which okay you could put it down a daily for a very

[1:57:04] short amount of time possibly till it gets redeveloped but that's and then if

[1:57:10] you turn the other lots into the time parking then you create just pedestrians

[1:57:15] coming further up more frequently so I don't know that it's like solving a lot

[1:57:21] of the problems. And I do think that it is going to be a question, and I know that we might not have a perfect answer, but I think we have to at least have some options of what we would do to replace that parking because that is that is so well utilized.

[1:57:39] I would really recommend that we have some options for that for discussion at this group.

[1:57:45] Before we go to the public and we do it in one of the first meetings when we have whatever

[1:57:52] the new makeup of the council is because some of us aren't going to be here and some new

[1:57:59] people be here and they're going to be there for two years and they're going to be dealing

[1:58:03] with it and I don't think it's something because if we're three months out I wouldn't be

[1:58:07] He's saying this, but we're three weeks away from the election.

[1:58:11] So I think we should just make that an agenda for an early meeting.

[1:58:16] Yeah, I mean, I think we should really try to think out of the box on this and try to figure out,

[1:58:24] you know, how do we, how do we meet all those goals?

[1:58:28] You know, I realize there's no money for parking lots, but, you know,

[1:58:32] Thomas one time said, well, why don't we just, you know, do tear parking?

[1:58:37] So what if the tiered, what if people could park underneath in Lot 6 and there's a platform there and maybe it's J.

[1:58:46] Shoemaker's idea that he presented for the mall, but maybe that shifts out to the to Lot 6.

[1:58:52] I mean, I don't have the answers, but I'm kind of seeing that we don't have the answer yet.

[1:59:00] What does it mean to do on?

[1:59:02] And so, I was going to put it back on you, Sam's, they like, what can be done here?

[1:59:10] Our answer remains do the raft to start there, see what it looks like.

[1:59:16] And then the question for you guys is what's next?

[1:59:19] And if the answer is, this group's not going to decide what's next, it holds your horse here.

[1:59:23] I'm just saying for three weeks, the horses were, but I hope what I said was there's no federal

[1:59:30] money for parking lots because if the council said protecting those 70 spaces was a priority, there's money.

[2:00:00] We just rearranged the capital plan. I mean, there, we could, you guys just have to say, that's the priority. And when this plan was discussed, we said you're going to lose 60 space. I'm keeping 16, 16, I don't know the number is. I thought it was 54, but 54. Sorry, I keep running. But I'm, I think we know how people park. I mean, I just, I'd be hesitant to just go ahead with the raft and incremental without even thinking about the next steps, because to me,

[2:00:29] that's not a plan. The amount might be part of a plan, but I think we need to think the whole thing through

[2:00:37] and know what we're doing. But the next council, I may not be here, next council, I have different views.

[2:00:45] And if the next council, I mean, wants to be super supportive of redevelopment of the mall, that might make one decision.

[2:00:51] If the next council does not want to be, they may make a different decision. So I'm tracking with you, but if there's

[2:00:57] are the three options we just wanted to start talking about.

[2:01:00] Why don't you just flip through them so you got them up there.

[2:01:05] So this is the, you've seen the other ones before.

[2:01:07] Yeah, let's just remind us.

[2:01:09] Of course.

[2:01:10] Um, I just don't be surprised if you don't see anything new and exciting here.

[2:01:14] Not that it's not exciting.

[2:01:16] Everybody loves transit.

[2:01:17] I was told that.

[2:01:17] Right here.

[2:01:20] We're after, uh, this is the raft of depot, incremental improvement plan with the five raft

[2:01:25] of buses.

[2:01:26] Three along the.

[2:01:28] Go ahead.

[2:01:28] Let me just ask you, as raft has seen this and said, yeah, we can do that.

[2:01:33] They have seen it.

[2:01:34] Those phones are so tight.

[2:01:36] They have seen it, said, yeah, we can do it.

[2:01:38] They've said, give us as much space as you possibly can.

[2:01:41] Okay.

[2:01:42] So, you see a lot of bento buses, but, you know.

[2:01:46] And that, I'll move on to the next one, but I do think that one of the things that would

[2:01:51] be really good for me to start doing now would be to have some more shows, some of these drawings

[2:01:58] to some people like Raffa and at least get moving on.

[2:02:01] Absolutely, at least get their feedback.

[2:02:03] If they say, well, that doesn't work for us,

[2:02:06] there's no point in our wasting our time with it.

[2:02:08] Because I hear the three weeks.

[2:02:10] It makes sense.

[2:02:11] I do want to keep it moving in that direction

[2:02:13] because the faster we can get something moving forward,

[2:02:17] the better chance we have of keeping some money.

[2:02:20] I totally agree.

[2:02:21] I totally agree.

[2:02:23] But if those tolerances are really tight

[2:02:26] and raft and needs more space and we could run the road through the bottom a lot

[2:02:31] six and open that up for Rafta. You know, maybe that's helped.

[2:02:37] Now you're talking about big money, right, to move the road, move carriageway.

[2:02:41] Yeah, that doesn't, yeah, I'm concerned that that's not quite as incremental as this would be.

[2:02:48] Well, that's, I mean, I don't disagree with you, but I, but the thought is how do we

[2:02:57] How can we make that a pedestrian area, and if the road is shown there doesn't go right by the front of the mall, we can take the pedestrians out of it, I think that would be really helpful.

[2:03:09] I mean, we know that we're going to have the most, we already have the most pedestrian vehicle interactions right on that corner of Lot 6.

[2:03:17] the

[2:03:28] scheme that sells most of the problems is the two-level scheme it really

[2:03:33] resolves a lot it's except for the parking no well we know you can you can you

[2:03:38] can you can double deck lot five and and you're right there you know and you

[2:03:46] done can I ask you a question Sam chair and the the raft of transit slide you

[2:03:54] have before, where it says, you know,

[2:03:58] Bay four, if it's in use, Bay three will not be able to leave,

[2:04:01] Bay four are compliant to Bay one.

[2:04:03] Is that like, is that a fact or is that like someone's

[2:04:06] going to have to know which goes first?

[2:04:10] It's similar to how it is now where if you have that,

[2:04:13] those first two buses are the only ones that can move

[2:04:15] and until they move, none of the buses behind are going

[2:04:18] to go anywhere.

[2:04:19] So it would require a busier times if you actually had

[2:04:23] buses in all five of those positions, a road supervisor to be there to help direct buses

[2:04:30] into bays.

[2:04:31] But again, it's essentially the same situation as they have now when all of those bays

[2:04:35] are full.

[2:04:36] Buses need other buses to move before they can get out.

[2:04:39] They do, but I think my concern still remains.

[2:04:43] It's like sometimes you have people getting on bus 4 and bus 3 or 2 is trying to leave and

[2:04:51] And those people are crossing diagonally, I mean, I've seen it happen.

[2:04:56] And I know you say some people say, well, oh, bus 4 is usually just the down, that-

[2:05:00] Alley bus. But there are times when it's not just the down valley bus. There are also times that I have seen Rafta pull up where that bus is like drawn in like at this really weird angle and let people off in the middle of the road. I think what would be great for me on this plan is to bring it to Rafta operations and say how would you use these five spaces if you had them and get that feedback from them because we don't have that feedback at this point. We know that they've said, yeah,

[2:05:29] We could we could do this this we could work with this but I don't know is for always going to be a loading spot

[2:05:35] Is it only going to be an unloading and go is it I don't know the answers to those questions Sam?

[2:05:40] Why don't you take them all the schemes we have for the red to

[2:05:44] To them it is double double double then you won this one right and get their feedback

[2:05:51] That's that is the next step that I'd like to go now

[2:05:53] Yes, we hadn't done that yet. That was part of our public outreach process

[2:05:57] but I'm saying if we're going to wait for the rest of the public

[2:05:59] I would like to go to that.

[2:06:01] It's a technical response.

[2:06:03] Give them dimensions and have them say yes or no.

[2:06:07] There are buses.

[2:06:09] And again, I mean how,

[2:06:11] Alyssa or council member Shank has some very pointed questions

[2:06:15] about how they would use these areas.

[2:06:17] And I think that would be a fair question.

[2:06:18] Well, I mean, there are times when it's busy

[2:06:21] and there's a raft of supervisor there.

[2:06:23] And there are times when there isn't.

[2:06:25] And a lot of these drivers are new.

[2:06:29] And it can just get really messy.

[2:06:32] So I think one of the reasons why are the old plan,

[2:06:37] I mean, obviously the actual design of it

[2:06:43] in the amount of service space it took up was one thing.

[2:06:46] But I think safety in J sitting back there,

[2:06:49] and he commented a million times

[2:06:50] you're having people cross in front of buses.

[2:06:52] This plan still has people crossing in front of buses, which is what I know it's an incremental plan, but that is one of the

[2:06:59] top priorities that we wanted to make was the safety of the pedestrians and the buses.

[2:07:06] So I think we just really need to make sure that Raffta feels comfortable

[2:07:10] with or without a supervisor there that this can be executed in a way that's not going to put anyone in arms way.

[2:07:18] Okay,

[2:07:24] always is

[2:07:31] That's what we got our direction. Yeah, I think we got our direction. Okay, unless there's any other questions or anything else you guys, but we'll keep

[2:07:37] Inch and something for we'll feel free to show some of these things. There'll be nothing formal for feedback. And we'll wait for you guys to tell us when you want to schedule.

[2:07:47] Sounds good.

[2:07:48] And we're not yet scheduling any public.

[2:07:50] I mean, we'll, again, we might do something informally, but it's not going to be a formal

[2:07:55] anything.

[2:07:56] Well, what do you mean?

[2:07:58] I want to do that.

[2:07:59] Well, I'll go.

[2:07:59] I'm sure we'll talk to Rafton.

[2:08:01] We'll talk to Rafton.

[2:08:02] We want to talk to Rafton.

[2:08:03] I think.

[2:08:03] Well, I would assume, I mean, this is in a public meeting, so we will get contacted by people

[2:08:08] to see this.

[2:08:09] But we're not going to have a, hey, be here at 330 or here's a formal survey, but I'm confident

[2:08:17] we will be contacted.

[2:08:18] Let me see these, please.

[2:08:19] There's a number of people that are like warned all the time and specifically asking everything.

[2:08:24] Yeah, and I think that, I mean, I just, I'm excited to have an open house and kind of a meeting form out of stakeholders because those one-on-ones, that's where information gets confused and you know,

[2:08:34] ideas aren't tossed around and sometimes mistakes get made when we misunderstand each other.

[2:08:42] Yeah, well we're all in the same room, it's better.

[2:08:43] We will stand by for you all to tell us when you want this re-engaged

[2:08:48] Okay

[2:08:50] Thanks. Hey Sam. All right moving on. We're going to take a look at the 2025 budget and

[2:08:58] We're going to look at the tourism

[2:09:02] EAB request the GID Sam. Don't knock that box over

[2:09:11] That's everything there

[2:09:14] Help me again. For some reason I cannot stay on.

[2:09:19] I bumped up.

[2:09:28] Yeah, this is a new version of Granicus is not great.

[2:09:36] I hate that the screen is smaller like you can't even get a full screen on it.

[2:09:40] I thought he was going to start us off.

[2:09:43] I'm just going crazy. I just go on the website.

[2:09:46] Is that what you're doing?

[2:09:47] Yeah. Thank you again.

[2:09:48] It just, I just find it a much easier flow.

[2:09:51] And then I just take my notes and open them.

[2:09:53] Yeah, I couldn't make some crazy.

[2:09:56] Give it up.

[2:09:56] So you just...

[2:09:57] I take my notes and like a word.

[2:10:01] Yes, you're having to go. Yeah.

[2:10:07] So Julie, take your time.

[2:10:11] No, I was totally funny. I just told it you were going to stare at yourself. Sorry. I apologize. I'm so sorry. So this our second in series, it's free budget presentations. Tourism department makes two verbal presentations to you in a year or two written presentations. We always kind of roll this budget presentation.

[2:10:35] presentation and one of their presentations to you all.

[2:10:38] So with that, I know this is Julia's first budget presentation to.

[2:10:44] She's ready to go and I'll shut up.

[2:10:47] Ta-da.

[2:10:48] Okay, now it's me.

[2:10:49] Okay, good evening.

[2:10:51] I think you all know what we do, but just for the people who don't,

[2:10:55] Sonoma's tourism positions Sonoma's college as the world class resort that it is.

[2:11:00] We also just got last year, as you know, number one resort in the U.S. in Canada.

[2:11:05] So we've gotten some great accolades making our job easier, but we work hard.

[2:11:09] We do that by leveraging creative marketing strategies, hosting special events and coordinating

[2:11:14] group sales efforts which are really important to our tourism economy, filling in those

[2:11:18] need periods.

[2:11:19] We work to attract visitors to resort and give them memorable experiences to keep them coming

[2:11:24] back through our guest services.

[2:11:25] And ultimately, our goal is that we are bolstering and supporting the local economy through our efforts.

[2:11:33] I'll do the numbers very quickly.

[2:11:34] Some of you may have seen these recently.

[2:11:37] Looking at how we have fared through May through October.

[2:11:40] So what we call summer season, our paid occupancy is at 39.4%.

[2:11:45] I just ask you, what is the database?

[2:11:49] Is this lodging, does it include short term rentals, does it include condos?

[2:11:53] I mean, what this is lodging, which would include condos, and it's anybody who participates in our

[2:12:00] destimetrics, that measure occupancy ADR, which is the average daily eight in RevFAR,

[2:12:05] so it's anybody who participates.

[2:12:07] So, probably not short-term rental.

[2:12:09] People do it with online services.

[2:12:11] It's a good question.

[2:12:12] 99% sure STR is not in that.

[2:12:13] Yeah, I don't think so.

[2:12:14] I'm 99% sure there's no STRs.

[2:12:17] Okay.

[2:12:18] Yeah.

[2:12:18] Are there other major developments that are not included in death

[2:12:26] metrics?

[2:12:27] I mean, there are other agencies like ARDNA that would measure specifically short-term

[2:12:34] rentals, which is a program that we could look at if we felt like that data was really

[2:12:37] valuable to us, but death metrics who we pull from right now will measure any hotel or condo

[2:12:45] that's participating, which should be most of them, but I don't actually know that answer

[2:12:48] So we should have most of the hotel and condo properties, but not the short-term renewals.

[2:12:55] So looking at this, you can see we're just a couple percent up on, you know, not huge

[2:13:00] numbers there for summer, ADR, average daily rate, whether visitor pays for a hotel is pretty

[2:13:05] flat, and the revenue per available room, the total revenue is up a couple points.

[2:13:11] This is as of the latest report, jumping with any questions as I go, by the way.

[2:13:17] This graph that I look at every month shows us how we're

[2:13:21] fearing per month.

[2:13:22] Then you can see here where the growth opportunities are.

[2:13:24] June and September and October are pretty low.

[2:13:27] July and August are looking pretty strong, which is

[2:13:30] typical of our summer pattern.

[2:13:32] And so when we look at this, we look at what strategic

[2:13:33] initiatives we can do to help fill in those more need

[2:13:36] periods.

[2:13:37] And that's where I mentioned things like group sales

[2:13:39] and special events that complement and try to bolster

[2:13:42] these occupancy rates.

[2:13:46] In terms of winter, this is how we are pacing as of the latest report, which is August 31st,

[2:13:52] so it's certainly not how we're going to finish, but looking at November through April.

[2:13:56] We are pacing a couple points ahead in our year-over-year occupancy.

[2:14:00] Our average daily rate looks pretty strong at 4% ahead, and total revenue is 6.2% ahead.

[2:14:07] Again, we look at these every month, so this is just how we're pacing.

[2:14:10] You can see there what a visitor at this point is paying for a room per night, we're at 743.

[2:14:18] Is it a 2% variance because it's like it's a 0.6% variance.

[2:14:23] 0.6 is the total revenue and the 4% is the variance in what the rate is, the 714 to 743.

[2:14:33] At the top right, no 2.1% is that something's not right, right?

[2:14:39] 29.6% projected over 29.0.

[2:14:46] That's, yeah, we're just, yeah, we're about 0.6 is 2.1% over, yeah, yeah, yeah, not

[2:14:55] huge numbers there, but we are pacing ahead, which is good.

[2:14:58] And again looking

[2:15:00] At it per month, you can see December is not super strong month for us, which is typical in resort communities because people wait till the holidays to come. January, February, look pretty strong. And you can see that we are pacing ahead of last year. But you can also see we have quite a ways to go to reach kind of our average occupancy. The gray line is the historical occupancy we've seen. And the one on the right is where we usually land, which is about 56% for the winter season.

[2:15:28] And are you still seeing people waiting longer and longer to book?

[2:15:32] We are, we're doing some things to incentivize bookings so we just did a flash sale in collaboration

[2:15:37] with the Aspen Skin Company in Acra and Snowmass was the clear winner in that so we're

[2:15:43] incentivizing people to book in September and out of, I think it was 28 bookings we got

[2:15:49] 26 of them went to Snowmass and the reason for that is because we incentivize people to

[2:15:53] book for longer stays and snowmass wins that formula for visitors because we have more

[2:15:58] condo properties and more ski and ski out.

[2:16:01] So we're working on people booking earlier, particularly was very strong for international

[2:16:05] market.

[2:16:06] The strongest market for that flash sale was actually Argentina.

[2:16:10] That was partially based on the way it was promoted by ski company to their international

[2:16:14] tour operators, but we are working to get earlier bookings and I would hope at the next report

[2:16:20] we'd see, you know, some of these numbers fill in earlier than, you know, the last minute

[2:16:26] bookings, and certainly international visitors tend to book earlier than a domestic visitor who

[2:16:32] might come up for a shorter stay from a closer destination, but trying to close in that booking

[2:16:37] pattern by some of the strategic initiatives we're doing.

[2:16:43] In terms of our budget, this is, I believe

[2:16:46] If you have these numbers in front of you, our total projected revenue is the $14,907,000 and our projected budget for tourism is $9.4 million, which leaves the $5.4 million for the housing fund.

[2:17:07] But as you've probably heard for 2025, the housing fund is actually looking at $7.1 million allocation,

[2:17:16] which would be the $5.4 million you see there when you minus the tourism expenses from

[2:17:22] the total revenue, and then the $1.7 from reserve funds to total the $7.1 going to housing.

[2:17:29] Of that 7.1, 3.35 million is allocated for future housing opportunities, 3 million for

[2:17:39] debt service for the draw site, and 750,000 for debt service for the snowmass center.

[2:17:46] You'll see at the bottom of this budget summary, we've got very healthy reserves, 30 percent

[2:17:51] which equals 4.4 million is put away for emergency funds.

[2:17:56] The funds that are restricted for tourism prior to the 2023 vote is at 7.5 million, which

[2:18:04] is a very healthy reserve for our organization.

[2:18:09] And then the housing fund, or the funds available, are being spent down to get to that 7.1 million

[2:18:14] for housing allocation.

[2:18:16] Do you need to pause for a second?

[2:18:18] What's that other, what, 3 million in housing, Clint?

[2:18:22] I mean, I understand that the reserve for the draw site and for buying the center site, but there was not a 3 million for housing, CIP.

[2:18:32] So in the tourism fund, the way I think about it is, I can't see that fund, sorry, but there's 15 million coming in.

[2:18:42] The first 9.5 goes towards tourism, everything else is set aside for housing.

[2:18:46] And so we've got three million for draw, 754, the land behind the center.

[2:18:53] What's left over is the capital for any kind of future housing project.

[2:18:58] So it's trans, yeah, the 3.3 million is a transfer into the CIP fund.

[2:19:04] And then any housing projects that are in the CIP fund may be funded from that.

[2:19:10] And if not, then it goes into a separate reserve in set aside for future housing.

[2:19:14] So we're going to be building up the reserve in the CIP fund for capital purchase.

[2:19:19] Okay. It's a savings account for a future hand.

[2:19:21] All right.

[2:19:23] This graph just shows you revenues over expenses every year.

[2:19:27] The first one being the 2024 budget and the right side being the 2025 budget, not showing huge growth.

[2:19:36] The next slide will drop, slight drop in revenue, that right?

[2:19:40] The middle one is actually the budget versus the projection.

[2:19:46] So the middle graph is 2024 projected, and the first one is the actual 2024 budget.

[2:19:53] And then the last graph is the 2025 projection.

[2:19:56] All right, actually the budget is usually a little conservative, right?

[2:20:00] Yeah, so then revenue is a little bit lower than what was projected in 2024 by very little.

[2:20:10] This shows you the revenue, marketing, and lodging tax is projected to be 3% year over year, which is a nice conservative estimate based on what we're seeing in terms of pace, which I think is smart because it's nice to budget conservatively and know that the money is going to come in.

[2:20:29] versus the other way around.

[2:20:32] Also, on this page, you'll see under expenditures.

[2:20:35] I'll basically take you through, because the marketing,

[2:20:39] the funds available for tourism, the budget is relatively flat.

[2:20:42] I'm going to take you just through where we've made changes on the budget

[2:20:45] for your understanding on the variances.

[2:20:47] I'm in one thing I wanted to call out here as the personnel expenses,

[2:20:51] which I don't have a separate slide for,

[2:20:53] are about 4% up year over year for salary increases and benefits.

[2:20:58] benefit increases, and then I'll take you through the changes on the marketing special

[2:21:04] events and PR side.

[2:21:06] All are relatively flat, but I'll take you through the changes that we made there.

[2:21:11] Marketing is slightly up, and special events is slightly down, which I'll explain to you

[2:21:16] and PR is slightly up, so I'll see.

[2:21:18] What is in the miscellaneous under revenues?

[2:21:21] There's a miscellaneous line item for $600,000.

[2:21:25] That's interesting come.

[2:21:26] Okay.

[2:21:27] Thanks.

[2:21:28] Can I ask you to do special events ever generate any revenue, or is that no, not to my knowledge.

[2:21:35] I don't know if it has.

[2:21:35] It would just be sales tax growth.

[2:21:37] There's no.

[2:21:38] We pay these producers.

[2:21:39] I kind of would assume they didn't, but I just want to know.

[2:21:42] We pay producers to come, essentially.

[2:21:46] We are attracting visitors and getting them to come back.

[2:21:50] Event producers.

[2:21:51] Yes.

[2:21:51] I beg your pardon.

[2:21:55] And this slide just compares the budget revenues and expenditures year over year.

[2:22:00] And if you look at the expenditures, we are looking at about $369,000 more in tourism funding

[2:22:07] than last year. So a relatively small number in the scheme of the overall budget.

[2:22:11] And as I said, I'll take you through those now.

[2:22:16] This is just sort of the budget at a glance.

[2:22:19] showing you kind of the numbers for 25 against 24, I'll talk about the, again, the changes

[2:22:26] we're making on the tourism budget, the 900,000 that's coming from capital to projects

[2:22:31] in the next year. As I mentioned, there's 7.1 million in total going to housing, and I

[2:22:39] wanted to call out on the bottom of the slide just that the revenue or the, sorry, the expenditures

[2:22:45] The measures in tourism are staying relatively flat, but what you can see growing, which I think is smart, is the allocation to housing over the last three years.

[2:22:52] So it was 4.6 million in 2023, and then 5 million, and then 7.1 for 2025.

[2:22:59] The CIP of 900,000 is that for the Macedon and for the Skittle Skittles.

[2:23:07] and for, yeah, and I'm going to take you through those now.

[2:23:11] So here's just where we made variances on the budget that total up, well, that $396 or

[2:23:17] about $400,000.

[2:23:18] Undergroup sales, we have $190,000 increase and that I believe was discussed with council

[2:23:24] around this time last year or at some point last year.

[2:23:28] It is a really unique opportunity for Snowmass to bring in one of the largest industry events,

[2:23:36] MTS stands for Mountain Travel Symposium.

[2:23:39] It brings in about 800 professionals in the ski industry

[2:23:42] from about 35 countries.

[2:23:44] It's ideally placed on the calendar the second week

[2:23:47] of April, so time when business is pretty low.

[2:23:51] And it is basically all the suppliers and buyers

[2:23:54] of travel in the ski market.

[2:23:57] So it's a really important group for us.

[2:23:59] The ROI on this will be huge in terms

[2:24:02] of actually the roommates in April,

[2:24:04] but it will have a much longer play in terms of the exposure that we're giving all these international ski buyers.

[2:24:09] And we are um partnering with Aspen skiing company on this initiative.

[2:24:13] It will be a huge event for us the second week of April following another event that we have in April is the DAV, the disabled vet.

[2:24:20] So it will really lend itself to a very strong April, but it is a pay to play to bring this group in.

[2:24:28] Under marketing, as I mentioned, the budget's relatively flat, the only additional budget

[2:24:33] we added was $50,000 to increase some summer advertising to the build the drive markets.

[2:24:40] We are, as you heard, from the airport people, have a leave reliant on air service, and

[2:24:43] our visitors coming in on direct flights, and we'd like to build more of awareness for

[2:24:49] the drive market, which we know they pass a lot of resorts on the way to us.

[2:24:52] and really it's partly in preparation for the potential airport closure in

[2:24:57] in 2026, which is slated for...

[2:25:00] We'll leave an eight month closure. The new runway wherever it is. Okay. Well, if there is a new runway that fits all our guests, it'll be an eight month. That's the plan summer of 2026. I'll tell you I'll tell you in a couple of weeks. I'll tell you in a couple of weeks. We're waiting to plan for it, but we're planning for it. So we do have an increase there to build, you know, the drive market business.

[2:25:25] The ICE age discovery, while the budget did decrease, that's because we have that money

[2:25:32] coming out of capital for the project for the mastodons, and we do still have budget

[2:25:36] there to continue the ICE age story, but that budget went down from last year when we

[2:25:40] had a significant budget allocation for some of the projects we did this year.

[2:25:46] And then we did slightly increase support under public relations for the international campaign.

[2:25:51] and we currently are working in the UK and Mexico

[2:25:55] and seeing great success in that.

[2:25:57] We are looking at some strategy for potentially adding a market

[2:26:00] or co-opping with the Colorado Tourism Office

[2:26:03] and the Aspen Scheme Company

[2:26:04] for some additional PR in the international markets.

[2:26:09] Did you have a question?

[2:26:10] No, because they're really important to us.

[2:26:13] So, guest services, this was more of a money move

[2:26:17] than a money ad.

[2:26:18] We didn't actually have a budget for guest services.

[2:26:20] it was under special events, and I wanted to more accurately reflect the budget and have

[2:26:24] guest services have its own line item. A bulk of that is the SMORS program, which really

[2:26:30] is a huge signature touch for our visitors. I would encourage all of you to go down to the SMORS

[2:26:36] in the season and see the delight on the visitors and locals faces that that program brings.

[2:26:41] And so I really just move that out of events into guest services, which is why the events budget

[2:26:46] It looks like it went lower, but it was kind of a money move, and there's, you know, just some very small changes in the events program.

[2:26:53] Are the smores about half of that budget?

[2:26:55] The smores are about $75,000, so it's a big chunk of it.

[2:27:00] Yeah, it's not cheap and marshmallows have gone up a pair of.

[2:27:05] But I have a question about the smores.

[2:27:07] Yeah, I mean, I have witnessed it.

[2:27:09] I know at the line, especially after Skisgulgatap.

[2:27:16] TNM is travel in meetings, so that's just for the guest services department, you know,

[2:27:21] to have meetings, to, you know, experience, they go around Snowmass and experience new

[2:27:26] restaurants and things, so it's just a very small budget, like I said, the bulk of that

[2:27:30] is the Smores program.

[2:27:32] So I feel like when we first came across the idea of the Smores and doing that, I don't know

[2:27:39] that it was intended to last as long as it's lasted.

[2:27:42] I mean, is there, I mean, do we feel that there's a time frame for this?

[2:27:46] I know it's wildly popular, but then I've also heard from people that own businesses

[2:27:51] that it is taking away from their business opportunity after skiing.

[2:27:59] Yeah.

[2:28:00] And I've heard the same.

[2:28:02] Yeah.

[2:28:02] Well, I will say that I think from my six months here,

[2:28:06] it seems that the SMORs are like other destinations who have that signature thing that makes

[2:28:11] guests feel really special. It's an important part of our brand. And I kind of had the

[2:28:16] same question when I came into the job and then I started hearing some of the testimonials

[2:28:19] and feedback from visitors and the guest service staff about how this little touch, you know,

[2:28:25] in the scheme of the budget and the overall efforts really makes them feel really welcomed

[2:28:29] and really special. I do understand that some businesses feel like they were doing

[2:28:35] And we took that away for them, but away from them.

[2:28:38] But the other goal around this Moores program was to keep people in the village versus

[2:28:43] like taking off from skiing.

[2:28:45] So it's just like a nice feel good for people to hang out.

[2:28:48] Kids and adults have Moores, and the idea was that people would spend longer in the village

[2:28:52] and not that they would take business away.

[2:28:55] The Moores program also is right now contracted to a local business, so there is somebody providing

[2:29:02] that to us and making, you know, the costs, covering their costs for that.

[2:29:06] So, the money is going back to a business.

[2:29:09] And I think the question's been asked, are we going to go to RFP, you know, and be able to open it up to another business at some point.

[2:29:15] I don't, I personally wouldn't say it needs to go away, but I'm open to, you know, hearing those conversations, which I understand some businesses are against it.

[2:29:22] And I'd add, those businesses, and that's why we have a tourism board come and

[2:29:26] tell them that the other concerns about it, and let the tourism board discuss it because

[2:29:30] I would, I would venture to say the vast majority of the tourism board is very supportive

[2:29:33] of the program and likes the way it operates.

[2:29:35] And so, if an individual business had that issue, that would be the place I think

[2:29:41] to start that conversation.

[2:29:42] Yeah, I mean, listen, in a place that's so expensive and nothing is ever free,

[2:29:48] like, you know, between the hot cider, which they don't do anymore on top of the mountain,

[2:29:52] and the bars and having this, I mean, it serves the need, I see the kids, I think it's great.

[2:30:00] And I personally feel like it's added that sort of special touch. And I think the people that actually serve this more like, really like it, like interaction with the kids is really cute. I'm just, it's just more of, you know, is there a longevity to it? Because I don't know that when we started it, it was intended to be that way. I think it was more like something. Yeah, I think everything's open to discussion and, you know, feedback. And if it doesn't work for

[2:30:29] the kind of majority of people, we can certainly look at it. I do think it's really nice to have

[2:30:34] that signature touch where the visitors get something people love free things and they love,

[2:30:38] I think, how it makes them feel really welcome, but it could be something else too.

[2:30:42] So I think if we took it away, it would be.

[2:30:45] Yeah, it's kind of hard to take something away. But I'm wondering if there's something,

[2:30:49] you know, if people are waiting in line for this more with their kids,

[2:30:52] Is there something that we could then do that we could give them to incentivize them to then go in frequent one of the businesses, like either go and sit and have a drink or get an appetizer or something?

[2:31:07] I don't know what that would look like. I just feel like, I don't know.

[2:31:11] I mean, yeah, they may just stay in line four.

[2:31:14] What?

[2:31:14] They wait around, I mean, four or five minutes?

[2:31:16] I have five or 10 minutes.

[2:31:18] Yeah, oh yeah.

[2:31:18] They're lined up until the doors open.

[2:31:20] Oh yeah.

[2:31:21] It's in base villages, especially the line is really well. Yeah, I've seen it on the mall. I've been seeing it basically

[2:31:27] 330, 330. Yeah, like an hour. I think yeah. Yeah, I mean using that to activate the next like what's next?

[2:31:37] Yeah, the idea was to bridge. Yeah, the idea was to bridge, you know, the ski experience to, you know, operate your dinner experience and have something.

[2:31:47] These people from Religious going back to their lives, right, jumping the hunt up or jump on a bus.

[2:31:52] I mean, if a business had an idea like that, if they wanted to walk up and down and give dollar off coupons for whatever, we would refine with that.

[2:31:59] But we know we do this to support them, and so if a business has got an idea on how to attract or better utilize that line that's waiting for us more, we're all ears.

[2:32:08] But some of the stuff we got to rely on them to do, to the mall's credit, they put it in an extra fire pit because they wanted it in a certain spot.

[2:32:14] I mean, a lot of people understand the importance of it and are working towards it, so.

[2:32:19] Yeah, no, I think it's great.

[2:32:21] I'm just wondering maybe if we could capitalize it on it a little bit more to benefit the other vendors.

[2:32:29] Yeah.

[2:32:29] And yes, it is keeping people there, but how long is it keeping people there?

[2:32:33] I mean, I've seen people grab their s'mores sticks and then eat them as they're walking to the bus stop.

[2:32:40] So I don't know.

[2:32:41] I think it's just something to explore.

[2:32:43] Yeah, I'm happy to open a feedback and happy to discuss it too, because I really kind

[2:32:48] of came in at the tail end of ski season, so I didn't see it activated as much.

[2:32:51] A big picture, if it's one of those things that said motivates them to come to snowmass

[2:32:56] next year, then everybody wins, right?

[2:32:58] Right, yeah.

[2:32:59] And everybody does win.

[2:33:00] I mean, I've heard guest services people say that people have said that's the reason they come

[2:33:04] back to snowmass, which sounds a little over the top, but it is like a thing.

[2:33:08] And it's not something with the kids, it's something with adults too.

[2:33:11] I've seen it.

[2:33:12] And they're keeping on this world that I've never had a s'more.

[2:33:15] And so it's very exciting.

[2:33:18] And now we have s'more socks, so it's part of our brand.

[2:33:22] But we're not stuck with it.

[2:33:23] We can always look at changing socks.

[2:33:26] And it is a signature.

[2:33:28] I mean, I think Beaver Creek and Vail Hand out cookies.

[2:33:31] Yeah, I was going to use that as an example.

[2:33:32] And they're known for that.

[2:33:33] You know, the smell of warm cookies.

[2:33:35] It's part of their like making people feel like they had that competition

[2:33:39] Or is this more is which are better than cookies?

[2:33:42] It was a community competition. Oh was like yeah people submitted their their cookie recipes

[2:33:48] And then they narrowed it down to have remenny and then they would come on opening day and you'd have to bake like a thousand cookies

[2:33:55] And then they would vote on who would be the winner and then that person became the cookie of the resort for the year

[2:34:05] Is it one or two businesses that get the contract for this morse?

[2:34:08] Right now it's going through one business, but I think that we would probably want to rotate it to be fair.

[2:34:14] I think it's been different businesses over the years.

[2:34:17] And we have put it out at least twice that I can remember, put it out there are a few process.

[2:34:21] It's the edge has it now.

[2:34:23] Yeah, Josie, yeah, I think it's I think they're in year two, if I remember it.

[2:34:27] No, we used to be, I can't remember, but it's been a couple of different businesses we put it out and

[2:34:31] for the first couple of years we actually did it and then we realized that wasn't smart.

[2:34:35] You started making that.

[2:34:36] That's a little glue than maybe.

[2:34:37] A little glue that was for a while, yeah, so it's been, we bit it out.

[2:34:40] Oh, yeah.

[2:34:41] Can I ask another question on guest services?

[2:34:44] Yeah.

[2:34:44] So is this where the contract for face painting and?

[2:34:51] That's not a special event.

[2:34:52] Oh, it isn't special event.

[2:34:53] Yeah.

[2:34:53] So the guest services budget just represents the Smores program, the Aces Hikes, and the, like,

[2:34:59] Uniforms for

[2:35:00] So the staff and, you know, they're a small budget for them to go around and have meetings and try things and, you know, experience snowmass so that they can fully talk about it, they could try something new. So this really all of these funds were in the budget existing. I just moved them out of special events to guest services so that we can accurately reflect what we're spending on the guest service experience. Because I mean, I kind of feel like that is a guest service as well. The face painting.

[2:35:32] I mean, I'm just, if you're moving things around, you can't let it explore them.

[2:35:36] I mean, this is literally, there's nine or 13.

[2:35:41] I can't remember the guest service employees, yeah.

[2:35:43] I think nine.

[2:35:44] I think nine.

[2:35:44] This is those people that sit in the trailer, I mean, it's very specific to this one thing that,

[2:35:50] you know, the, where's the bathroom, I don't want to, where's the bathroom, how do I catch

[2:35:54] your bus, where's a lift to get off of this, that kind of stuff.

[2:35:57] These are just the things to me that made sense to put in to get services as a guest service

[2:36:01] initiative and they also manage these things, special events, managers, the face painting

[2:36:05] and the other activations like that, so that's in their budget.

[2:36:08] The last change is another new line item I called industry relations and it is for, I'm

[2:36:16] going to talk to you today about the destination management plan, so it's covering the cost

[2:36:19] of facilitating that.

[2:36:21] There's also budget in there to facilitate new ideas that come out of the destination

[2:36:25] management plan because we don't want to come up with great ideas and have zero budget

[2:36:29] to implement them in year one. And also, I know when I came into this position, there was a

[2:36:34] goal to have more community engagement. So, you know, putting some of the chores and talks in person,

[2:36:39] some of the business after hours, so that we can engage with the community and other industry

[2:36:44] events. There wasn't a specific budget for it, so I called it out in this industry relations line

[2:36:48] item. And so, these things I just went through represent that $400,000 change in the budget.

[2:36:56] So unless there's any questions, I was going to move into the capital projects that represent

[2:37:01] that $900,000 budget allocation.

[2:37:04] I don't think there's any breaking news here, but the first one is the Macedon's by

[2:37:09] artist Jen Lewin.

[2:37:11] There is $250,000 between this year and next year's budget for the design, fabrication, and

[2:37:18] installation.

[2:37:19] I'm super excited to bring this project to them all.

[2:37:22] Well, I think it really brings the ice age discovery story to life for the visitors with

[2:37:27] life size mastodons and also meets community, the council's goal to engage with the community

[2:37:32] and to really have a sense of place in everything that we do.

[2:37:37] So I think you've seen the renderings, they're going to be really pretty amazing right outside

[2:37:42] the view line there and also pretty cool story.

[2:37:46] The artist is a very hot name right now and the fabrication of them is very interesting.

[2:37:51] the mama is made out of recycled ocean plastic and as you can see here I think you can see visitors

[2:37:57] will be able to walk into the mastodon and the inside of the mastodon will be featuring infinity

[2:38:05] LED mirrors and those mirrors will feature the flora of the ice age era so it's going to be a very

[2:38:13] interactive cool exhibit that I think again will really create a sense of place and bring that ice age

[2:38:20] story to life. Here's another one, the interior of Mama can also be lit up with different

[2:38:26] colors, so it could be themed like the Empire State Building comes to mind if you wanted

[2:38:31] to light it up in different colors. And we, you know, our goal is to have it be very interactive

[2:38:37] and have it be a really focal point for the visitor.

[2:38:41] And just on that one, we're still waiting for property permission. That's the one last

[2:38:45] thing we're waiting for is to get property permission to put it there.

[2:38:50] from the view line, and then we are going to move to final contract with the artist.

[2:38:55] And so we had initially said it'd be installed in summer, but we're thinking it'd probably

[2:38:58] more like fall as we kind of finalize those agreements so that we can give the artist

[2:39:02] appropriate time for the fabrication.

[2:39:05] And then go ahead, you asked.

[2:39:07] The $250,000 is in the budget for that.

[2:39:09] Well, that cover is that exactly what's needed to cover creating the art and install it?

[2:39:15] That should cover everything, the design of it,

[2:39:17] the fabrication of it, and the installation.

[2:39:20] There be anything left over for, I don't believe so.

[2:39:25] Will there be interpretive signage as well?

[2:39:30] That's a good question.

[2:39:31] I don't know that we've talked about signage

[2:39:32] as something we could definitely discuss.

[2:39:34] It's necessary.

[2:39:35] Because I would think we'd want to tie back to the story.

[2:39:38] I mean, I think, yeah, one interesting we mentioned that

[2:39:41] because that's kind of what I was getting as their room

[2:39:43] for any little bits and pieces

[2:39:45] to be added to the signage.

[2:39:47] I don't think it's like signage.

[2:39:48] There would be a organic feature around it

[2:39:50] to bring some warmth in or other suggestions.

[2:39:53] Well, it can be added to the walk.

[2:39:54] Like, if you scan the QR code and it tells you the locations

[2:39:58] could be added to that.

[2:40:00] I would think that being conjunction with like the art map and you know, all the signage that's going around that and this will be added to that and you know, I think that would be part of that. Some little sign that lets you know, this is the size of a man, you know, and why it's important and all that. I mean, why. And I have to do through the QR code and this and that and just something really dumb and simple. People may not know why we have mammoths. They're going to know now. My other question is.

[2:40:29] I mean, I feel like some of the art that we have around the village isn't as easily accessible in terms of like people walking by it all the time.

[2:40:38] So security-wise, I mean, how sturdy are these things?

[2:40:46] Like, is it like a snowball goes into it and creates a problem?

[2:40:50] Are we gonna have any sort of surveillance camera on it?

[2:40:54] I mean, I'm asking because I know the reality that sometimes things get damaged.

[2:40:59] I know we talked about that with the bears too.

[2:41:01] Like our people are going to start climbing on them.

[2:41:03] And I mean, I think these are made for some wear and tear.

[2:41:06] They're huge and they're super solid.

[2:41:09] The babies made out of chrome.

[2:41:10] They're not going to be like damaged easily, I don't think.

[2:41:13] But I think it's a fair question.

[2:41:15] I don't know that we've talked about security cameras,

[2:41:17] but we can certainly discuss security

[2:41:20] and how to make sure that they stay protected.

[2:41:23] Yeah, I mean, I think it's a big investment.

[2:41:24] We've waited for a long time to sort of be able

[2:41:28] to do something like this, and I don't know.

[2:41:32] I think we need to make sure it stays protected the best we can.

[2:41:37] No, I think it's a good discussion, as much as you don't want to believe that people are going to do bad things like, you know what I'm saying.

[2:41:42] Yeah, and the ice sculptures that we had there were amazing, but, you know, you come back the next day and somebody's broken them off, and it's like, oh, yeah.

[2:41:53] No, I think it's a fair question.

[2:41:55] and we want to make sure, like you said,

[2:41:56] it's a good, big investment to make sure that they stay

[2:41:59] and they're safe, already be cameras.

[2:42:01] I don't know about the mall security.

[2:42:02] I don't know if there's already cameras

[2:42:04] and something that could be adjusted.

[2:42:07] I happen to know that it's been thought about

[2:42:09] and we will, without going through the whole thing,

[2:42:11] yes, we know that it's important to have that.

[2:42:13] Thank you, okay.

[2:42:14] That was my main question.

[2:42:15] Thank you.

[2:42:15] I could help you earlier, sorry.

[2:42:16] I'm not a part of the conversation.

[2:42:17] You were doing so good.

[2:42:18] I didn't want to jump in on you.

[2:42:20] She's doing great.

[2:42:21] I know.

[2:42:21] That's why I didn't want to zip in it.

[2:42:23] Yeah, I mean, I don't know everything yet, but I'm working on it.

[2:42:27] Super excited to the other capital investment is again really significant.

[2:42:34] It's our, you know, signature Thursday night concerts that create so much engagement with the community and visitors and locals.

[2:42:40] It is a significant investment of $500,000 between this year and next year's budget.

[2:42:45] But our stage for the Thursday night concerts has come to the end of its lifespan.

[2:42:51] It is past its kind of structural integrity, and it really is time to upgrade it to past safety inspections.

[2:42:58] I'm super excited about the new stage that we're bringing. It's a mobile stage, so it essentially sort of flips open versus taking days to build.

[2:43:09] So while the investment is significant in the long term, this will require less labor to set up and less labor to dismantle.

[2:43:15] and it will be movable if we want it to move it somewhere and it is a state of the art

[2:43:21] stage so I'm really excited to upgrade that I think it'll be great experience for not

[2:43:26] only the audience but for the artists coming in and with that the audio system has been

[2:43:32] kind of had some challenges the current audio system is 30 years old and the sound isn't

[2:43:40] reaching the second half of the hill so we're upgrading the new audio as well to

[2:43:45] really, you know, be in line with all the modern technology we have for sound

[2:43:50] and stage. And here's just an example of the stage. This is, you know,

[2:43:56] branded for somebody else, but we can brand it obviously with snowmass,

[2:43:59] any sponsors, and it's, you know, like I said, it's a mobile stage that will

[2:44:05] require less work and less things to serve pops up from a trailer. I mean,

[2:44:09] I might be overstating the ease of it. I don't know. But it's like the one that

[2:44:13] they have a jazz athlete, they like crank.

[2:44:15] Yeah, it's sort of just pops open versus I understand

[2:44:19] the previous stage did take a number of days to build

[2:44:22] and dismantle.

[2:44:23] So this will just be easier in the long run.

[2:44:25] It'll require less labor hours and less time

[2:44:28] to put up and take down.

[2:44:30] So if we wanted to have a concert at the rodeo,

[2:44:34] for example, you can stock that model.

[2:44:36] I don't think you can move it like daily or anything.

[2:44:38] No, no, we could move it like say after the,

[2:44:41] I mean, I don't want to speak because I don't know,

[2:44:42] you know, the details of the logistics of it,

[2:44:45] but it does sound like we could move it like,

[2:44:47] say after the Thursday night concert series

[2:44:50] to the rodeo lot and do an event down there,

[2:44:53] which is pretty cool versus dismantling it for days

[2:44:56] and then like resetting it up.

[2:44:58] And these are the sort of state of the...

[2:45:00] We are at the new stages where we want to be, you know, modernizing too. So more opportunity, I think, than along with.

[2:45:11] And then the last capital project is the $400,000 annual contribution for the eventual replacement of these skittles. So that's just a transfer.

[2:45:23] And then the last thing I wanted to talk to you, the most newest exciting thing we're working on that you've heard a little bit about, and I just wanted to take you a little bit more through the process and what it means for snow mass is the

[2:45:33] destination management plan.

[2:45:36] Here's just a textbook definition of what does a destination

[2:45:39] management plan or destination management mean?

[2:45:41] It's the coordinated management of all the elements

[2:45:44] that make up a tourist destination to really enhance

[2:45:46] its overall appeal, success, and long-term sustainability.

[2:45:50] This graphic just shows you the types of things

[2:45:53] that we're looking at in a destination management plan.

[2:45:57] It's not just about the marketing and attracting visitors.

[2:45:59] It's about really engaging with the community.

[2:46:02] It's about doing an assessment of our destination, our strengths, and our weaknesses.

[2:46:06] It's taking all the data that we already have and putting that into the mix.

[2:46:11] And I'm going to take you a little bit through like the process of what that looks like.

[2:46:17] A little bit about destination management plans.

[2:46:19] And some of you may have heard this if you came to tourism talks or some other meetings

[2:46:22] because we have been engaging already in the community.

[2:46:25] But it is like a really broad holistic look at assessing and strategizing around a tourism

[2:46:30] destination.

[2:46:30] It will build a roadmap to support the long-term health of Snowmass and the well-being, not only

[2:46:35] for visitors but for the community.

[2:46:38] It's a very participatory process, which I'll take you through kind of what that looks

[2:46:42] like.

[2:46:43] It'll involve all key stakeholder groups, elected officials as yourself and key decision-makers

[2:46:48] as well as our community residents.

[2:46:51] And as mentioned here, it's going to be cognizant of our budget, which we have really good resources

[2:46:57] for, and our funding mechanisms, and what we actually can implement, and what we can't

[2:47:04] implement. We contracted, we put out an RFP, we got 10 proposals, and we contracted

[2:47:10] with road map consulting. I'm really excited to work with them. They are based locally in

[2:47:15] Carbondale, but they have put together a team of professionals, some that are not local,

[2:47:20] that really, I think, did the best job at responding to the RFP. One thing that I was

[2:47:25] very definite about is I wanted it to be an actionable and succinct plan that's measurable.

[2:47:31] Some destination management plans can be very long and I don't want it to be something

[2:47:36] that sits on a shelf and is like nobody reads it because it's 100 pages.

[2:47:39] So I really want to come up with really a five-year road map.

[2:47:43] We're using five years as a baseline.

[2:47:45] It could have longer tactics too that we might want to look at in the longer term but really

[2:47:51] We're looking at sort of short mid and long range goals for the destination and something

[2:47:55] that we can action and the council will be able to measure against as well.

[2:47:59] As it says here, it will have a defined vision and mission for the destination with specific

[2:48:03] goals, strategies and tactics, and it will identify needs.

[2:48:07] It might be things like destination development, which would mean like do we want new products

[2:48:11] for our visitors, new initiatives, and really just looking at enhancing the visitors, but

[2:48:17] But it will also take in consideration the needs of the community as well.

[2:48:22] And again, it will define what implementation looks like.

[2:48:24] It will have a timeline and it will identify the budget needs.

[2:48:27] So my hope is that the plan also times really well with a five-year budget that we put together

[2:48:33] to say that we've identified some priorities for the destination and we can also look at

[2:48:37] budgeting against those in sort of a proactive and long-term way.

[2:48:44] In terms of stakeholder engagement, we've already started the process and I wanted to take

[2:48:48] you through what's already been happening and what is still going to be happening.

[2:48:53] In some of you where I know part of this, so in September we kicked off the process.

[2:48:57] We had meetings with the tourism board and with our various committees, the group sales committee

[2:49:01] and the marketing advisory, sorry, it says the marketing advisory board, that's actually

[2:49:06] the marketing advisory committee and we did a community tourism talks at the collective

[2:49:11] and September. Right now we are working on two surveys. We're just finalizing those this week.

[2:49:17] We hope to start distribution of those next week. One is specifically targeted to SNOMAS residents

[2:49:24] and one to tourism stakeholders and ask them a series of questions about how they feel about the

[2:49:29] destination. It's about 30 questions long, you know, how they feel about the future of the destination,

[2:49:35] what's important to them. And we're going to have those surveys distributed from next week,

[2:49:40] probably through like mid-December to really get as much community participation as possible.

[2:49:46] Those will go out through the TOSV website and through our tourism stakeholder newsletters,

[2:49:51] social media, various other outlets to make sure we get as much participation in those as

[2:49:56] possible.

[2:49:58] and they are drafted already.

[2:50:00] They're in draft form and we're looking to finalize those this week.

[2:50:07] We are also working in response to the RFP I put together. We're working on two focus work sessions. They probably won't take place in November, but we are putting the teams together for a sustainability workforce and a DEIA specific workforce session. So there should be some goals that come out of this plan that are specific to sustainability and DEIA. And again,

[2:50:29] and mid and longer term goals.

[2:50:33] DEIA is diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

[2:50:37] And it is an important part of what the work that tourism does.

[2:50:41] So to include things like making visitors and locals

[2:50:44] all feel more welcome, things like accessible travel,

[2:50:47] looking at visitors with disabilities,

[2:50:52] whether they're hidden or physical,

[2:50:53] are they welcome in our community,

[2:50:55] are there ways we can make it more welcoming,

[2:50:58] diversity in our marketing, diversity in our product and, you know, our tourism product

[2:51:03] and things like that.

[2:51:04] So they're pretty broad topics.

[2:51:07] The initial work sessions will look at them kind of holistically, sustainability is also

[2:51:11] a very broad topic.

[2:51:13] It could be sustainability in terms of our environment, our trails, our natural resources,

[2:51:18] but it's also the sustainability of the well-being of our community and the sustainability of our

[2:51:23] tourism economy.

[2:51:24] So, the plan is to have sort of an overall work session and then I see different types

[2:51:30] of goals coming out of those sessions that will require further work because of both

[2:51:35] very broad topics.

[2:51:37] And then in December, we're working on two community visioning workshops.

[2:51:41] We have penciled in December 3rd and 4th and I'll send you an invite with all the details.

[2:51:47] December 3rd is planned as an afternoon session.

[2:51:50] our thought is, you know, hopefully people are out skiing on some great powder by then.

[2:51:55] And then they come down and we have something at base village where we invite the community to come away in on these different topics.

[2:52:03] And then we host like a happy hour, so it'll be casual, it'll be open to anybody.

[2:52:08] It'd be sort of like an open house feeling like if you can't stay for two hours, you don't have to.

[2:52:12] But we really want to invite the community to come in and all of you to come in and be part of the plan.

[2:52:17] and then December 4th, we will probably hold something here or in more of a conference

[2:52:22] room setting focused on more of our tourism stakeholders.

[2:52:27] And so those two will be really key feedback loops for this plan along with those surveys.

[2:52:35] We're also looking at about 10 to 15 individual interviews with key stakeholders and we're just

[2:52:40] putting that list together.

[2:52:42] We want to make sure we have a really broad spectrum of stakeholders that will have different

[2:52:46] and thoughts about the future of snowmass

[2:52:48] and those will be individual interviews

[2:52:50] with our consultant road map

[2:52:51] and there'll be about 45 minutes in length

[2:52:53] and so all of that will go into the plan.

[2:52:56] So then I assume when you do all this

[2:52:59] then there's a draft and it'll be brought to us

[2:53:02] well the chance to weigh in on it.

[2:53:04] So all this is very impactful on the community

[2:53:07] and the community.

[2:53:07] Yes, absolutely.

[2:53:09] What's not listed here is that there will be

[2:53:11] a work session with council.

[2:53:13] So they'll be, I don't know if work session is the right word, but a session.

[2:53:17] A meeting is called a meeting.

[2:53:19] We'll figure out the format.

[2:53:19] Yeah, there's also going to be a meeting engaging the department heads, the tenant department

[2:53:24] heads.

[2:53:26] And then what's not calendared out yet, but in the new year is exactly what you said is that

[2:53:31] we will have a draft plan that's presented to these various, including yourselves and

[2:53:36] these various committees and then time for feedback on the plan before we go to a final plan.

[2:53:41] and the final rule wouldn't need to be approved by Council.

[2:53:44] Eventually.

[2:53:45] Yeah.

[2:53:45] And the tourism board?

[2:53:47] And the tourism board.

[2:53:48] Sure.

[2:53:48] Yeah.

[2:53:49] And these work sessions would be sometime coming up.

[2:53:53] November.

[2:53:54] Pased.

[2:53:54] The sustainability in DEIA, we're working on those lists of who we want on those work sessions.

[2:54:00] So again, we want to have like a broad base of different people.

[2:54:03] You're anybody's welcome to join those.

[2:54:05] And then I don't know that the meetings will actually be held in November.

[2:54:09] they may be kind of formalized in November and meet sometime in November December, avoiding

[2:54:16] obviously the holidays. So we're just our council. And then for council, I believe post-election

[2:54:22] will schedule a session to come and do some planning on that as well. And then in Q1 of next

[2:54:30] year, we'll be more of a draft plan, we'll be presented, you know, time for review and then more

[2:54:36] of a final plan with the goal of the final plan

[2:54:39] being completed sort of March-April,

[2:54:41] but some flexibility on that, if it takes longer,

[2:54:45] we obviously are, you know, want to get it right,

[2:54:47] and want to get the input that we think is important

[2:54:49] to this plan.

[2:54:50] So I'm really excited about this work.

[2:54:52] It's kind of new work, and I think in the last five,

[2:54:56] or so years, the tourism ministry has really taken

[2:54:59] a different,

[2:55:00] I know some of the stakeholders have said, why are you doing this? Some people are questioning the why, and it's really important that we are not just coming up with strategy that works for the tourism board or the tourism department, but it's really a community-based plan. I think the trend in the last five years that the tourism ministry is really looking at what's good for the visitor also has to be good for the community, because you have to have that holistic look at the community and residents and visitors both having really good

[2:55:29] experiences. And so I'm excited to do this work with both the community and our tourism

[2:55:34] stakeholders to come up with the plan and then bring it to, you know, have you guys input

[2:55:38] in the work and then bring it to you.

[2:55:41] Awesome. That's such an experience from Snowmass's history of resort community efforts for

[2:55:47] balance. Yeah. I think it'll be great. I think it'll be a great process. And like I've

[2:55:51] told people, it should be fun. It should be engaging and it should be inspiring because

[2:55:54] as you've seen at some of the, you know, tourism talks and things, it's talking about like,

[2:55:58] But what is your ideal future look like and that's really what we want to strive for is

[2:56:02] a place that visitors love and come back to and that community is, you know, feels like

[2:56:08] that we have their best interest at heart and we're working for them too.

[2:56:12] And I think that's the end of it unless there's any questions.

[2:56:17] Another question about our capital projects.

[2:56:22] How much do we have in the budget for the Skittles?

[2:56:24] How much have we banked so far?

[2:56:28] Let's see, let's say it's something over 2 million, like 2.6, 2.8, something like that.

[2:56:38] I'm going under, I'm going to do 4.

[2:56:40] Let's see, surprise.

[2:56:43] Well, at the end of this year, it'll be 2.8 because there's about 2.4 at the ending bounds,

[2:56:51] but that assumes we spend 400,000, which we're not going to this year.

[2:56:55] So that'll make it 2.8 and plus another 4 next year.

[2:56:59] So we have 2.8 allocated for Skittles replacement in a savings account, yeah.

[2:57:07] And I thought we'd save more than that by now, but no.

[2:57:10] It's been 400 a year for five years, six years.

[2:57:14] So that's yeah, because in the beginning, when we were transferring over 400,000,

[2:57:22] and it was to pay also for any projects that tourism had.

[2:57:26] So the whole 400 wasn't set aside in those beginning years.

[2:57:30] And I guess we've spent some on it as well, right?

[2:57:32] We had to put a new rope on and we had some maintenance.

[2:57:35] And well, that's where, this is one of the other topics is just

[2:57:40] to run through the GID budget real quick,

[2:57:43] and that's where those expenses are.

[2:57:46] And then to see if there was any other questions in the packet

[2:57:49] because next week, you know, we should be able to wrap it up by doing the CIP fund and

[2:57:56] then adoption on the 6th.

[2:57:59] And Julia, just as far as the Mastodons go, have you involved the Arts Advisory Board

[2:58:06] at all?

[2:58:06] Oh, yeah.

[2:58:07] Sorry.

[2:58:08] I failed to say that, but they unanimously approved the project.

[2:58:12] I'm very excited about it.

[2:58:14] I mean, it looks great.

[2:58:15] Yeah.

[2:58:15] I'm excited.

[2:58:16] Any other questions?

[2:58:20] On one special event or just events?

[2:58:24] How much flexibility does the budget allow for new ideas?

[2:58:29] If it's not scheduled now, is there any room for events to come in?

[2:58:34] Yeah, we do build some contingency in both the winter and summer events budget.

[2:58:40] And then we do have some contingency in the

[2:58:44] decision-marketing plan process as well.

[2:58:46] So depending on what ideas come out of that,

[2:58:50] we would probably have to prioritize,

[2:58:51] because there's not a huge budget attached to it,

[2:58:53] but I wanted to make sure we had some monies

[2:58:55] to support ideas that were kind of the low hanging fruit

[2:58:59] or the shorter term ideas.

[2:59:01] So there's some different opportunities there.

[2:59:05] And typically, unless it's a small event,

[2:59:07] a lot of events, if you're bringing in a new event,

[2:59:09] isn't probably going to happen in the same budget year if it's you know a big signature event

[2:59:13] that would take some time to build so it could be budgeted in future years but would you build

[2:59:17] contingency and all those line items to you know facilitate new ideas and some innovation.

[2:59:27] Great thank you. Yeah good info. Thank you. It's good stuff going on. Thanks for that.

[2:59:32] Thank you. So we'll try to wrap this up quickly. Let's look at the GID budget first.

[2:59:40] It's page 165.

[2:59:43] And this is just kind of an overview.

[2:59:44] We don't have to put our GID hats on, right?

[2:59:46] No, no, Clint thought that this might be a good idea to go ahead and get through this budget.

[2:59:53] And then we'll do adoption as the GID board on November 6th.

[2:59:57] We won't have to go back through this.

[2:59:59] Okay, great.

[3:00:00] And if there are questions, we'll be ready for them. So the couple of things, just to point out, you will be doing a GID revised budget also on the sixth. If you look down the 2004 variance column, it's mostly for two lines down there. The Skittles, the SkyCab operating is going to end up over budget by $13,000. The winter hours, we were

[3:00:29] or any other anyone that is waiting?

[3:00:32] Whoa.

[3:00:38] Theuity or the winter operating hours

[3:00:41] were scheduled originally budgeted to end at 9 o'clock

[3:00:45] and they actually ended at 9'30.

[3:00:49] So they had an extra half hour to pay.

[3:00:51] Those same hours are budgeted for in 2025.

[3:00:55] And then the other big increase was the snow melting for lower carriageways.

[3:01:03] So that is over by 37,000.

[3:01:07] Most of that is black hills gas.

[3:01:10] And it had to do with the work that and the team were doing on the vaults.

[3:01:17] And they had to run the snow melting greater and longer than what they had anticipated.

[3:01:23] So it's those two lines in 2025 that one, that'll be a separate resolution that you'll be adopting.

[3:01:35] Property taxes, the mills stay the same.

[3:01:38] If you recall, it's six mills and it'll stay that way until the bonds pay off or pay off.

[3:01:45] That, where's the town's assessed value only went up less than 1% the assessed value because of new construction for

[3:01:53] the GID went up 12.4%, so we have some additional income coming in.

[3:02:02] Interest income will be decreased.

[3:02:06] The expenses are like 5% increases, like I said the SkyCab, that increases the same hours,

[3:02:16] but we're anticipating that the ski company will increase their rates.

[3:02:21] I have budgeted 7% for that and then snow melting will go down next year and

[3:02:30] anticipates because we won't be running the snow melting for that long.

[3:02:36] So that is the key budget because the vault will be fixed hopefully sometime in 2025.

[3:02:47] Any questions on that budget?

[3:02:48] I had a question about the Skittles, I mean

[3:02:56] all the way it took, in 20, what is it, in 2029, is that what the year is?

[3:03:03] Yeah, it shows it's like $445,000.

[3:03:07] I'm increasing it by 7%, every single year, because their payroll and their benefit costs go up, as well as any of their operating costs.

[3:03:17] So, but I know we've talked about it before and we received emails from Pat Kiefer about

[3:03:26] ski co-contributing more, contributing to the summer skittles.

[3:03:34] Right. Well, so that's mean, and you guys when you adopted the master plan, the mountain

[3:03:37] master plan, they're required to come back at the end of December with a framework for that.

[3:03:42] And so we don't have that yet.

[3:03:44] But once we do, this will, I mean, hopefully it's going to, I mean, the fact is, is that it

[3:03:51] is a pinnacle whether it's in the winter or the summer.

[3:03:54] And I don't think they can deny that.

[3:03:55] And I think a lot has changed on the mountain.

[3:03:57] And I really think that they need to be paying more of a fair share for the summer.

[3:04:02] Yeah.

[3:04:03] So three of you, three of the five of you guys have got this update for me.

[3:04:06] So I owe you some, we continue those discussions.

[3:04:09] We expect you guys to, we expect something to come back from the ski company by the end of December to hit that master plan requirement, but it's going to be, it's not automatic in the mind, that's for sure.

[3:04:23] There, there's a number of funding sources they want us to look at. There's a lot of expansion ideas of the GID. There's a lot of different things.

[3:04:29] and so anyhow, that is still being worked on actively, but this budget does not reflect

[3:04:37] that yes, we don't have an agreement in place.

[3:04:41] I mean, theoretically, I guess, if we've gotten, if we struck a deal and got to work,

[3:04:46] yeah, potentially, but we'll just have to set this up so it's, yeah.

[3:04:49] Okay.

[3:04:51] I mean, what point does it make sense for the GID to take over operations of this?

[3:04:59] you

[3:05:00] All right, let's take a look at the details. Will we pay for it? Do you mean, rather than having the ski company around it? Well, they're trained to do it, so the town would have to hire. That would take us. That would, that would mean off the cup. That'd be tough because I don't know how to run a ski lift and I'd have to hire someone to do that. I mean, there's just a level of expertise that we don't have. But I mean, but it would, would it be the town or would it be the GID? Yeah, I mean, it'd be the GID funding it. And I'm assuming that GID

[3:05:29] with an idea within contract with the town, just like the GID contracts with the town for the finance department and the town manager and legal, I mean, it's the same people just a different funding source.

[3:05:42] And if we hired, I don't know how many employees it takes to run that, but two on the bottom two on the, I would imagine it takes at least six people to run that as many hours as it does.

[3:05:52] I mean, it would just take, we could work through that, but we've never even considered it to this point.

[3:05:59] Right now, and I have to go back and reread the operating agreement, the 2004 operating agreement,

[3:06:05] but I think what it says is, the ski company runs it and the GID pays for it, but I'd have to go back.

[3:06:11] There's decades of agreements behind that, and so I'm not even close to prepared to answer that question.

[3:06:19] And so the last thing for tonight is you've got a lot of information at our last budget

[3:06:29] meeting for all the changes that were occurring in the budget and we hit some of these beginning

[3:06:36] pages in the budget which actually summarizes a lot of information and if we're going to do

[3:06:44] So the CIP next week, I just wanted to make sure that after you've looked at the packet

[3:06:51] now for maybe two weeks.

[3:06:54] And if you had any other questions on anything else in the packet, don't assume that we

[3:07:01] won't have some next week on the social media.

[3:07:03] This is it.

[3:07:05] Speak now.

[3:07:06] And I'll ask questions to smidge different.

[3:07:08] If there's something you want more information on or more detail, we just need to, I mean,

[3:07:13] If you tell us in advance, we could be a preference for you.

[3:07:16] I have one that, not directly what we've looked at, but some I like to do some research for our next meeting.

[3:07:24] And this has to do with the rodeo, we've heard it from the community, people are not happy with the way it looks.

[3:07:31] I like to have some money in the budget for next year to do major landscaping around it.

[3:07:40] look at maybe painting the stands and having some sort of a gait at the entrance off of the roundabout so you just don't look into the dirt field, my guess of probably $250,000 for something like all that, but I think we should look at it and we get some money in the budget.

[3:07:59] And I'd be curious about some kind of awnings to go over the stands and there are good

[3:08:10] examples of organic, like structured, structural options that can give it a more organic, I

[3:08:19] know it's big, but I'd be curious to know about that because that's another way to kind

[3:08:23] of lessen the visual impact of the stands.

[3:08:26] actually. Well, I'll show you the example. Yeah, if we're bringing that topic

[3:08:33] to the conversation. Yeah, well, and I know the part of the open space and

[3:08:37] trail poster committee started this discussion last week. And so they have

[3:08:42] the same concept. And so next week, if you guys say, hey, we know there's not a

[3:08:47] solution yet, but let's plug in pick your dollar amount for and we'll do a

[3:08:51] second number. Yeah, yeah, we'll have a little more information. We just started

[3:08:54] last week. So I don't have a whole lot of numbers yet. But yeah, we knew that's a topic of

[3:08:58] conversation. And I mean, obviously, you know, painting is an option for sure. You can paint

[3:09:03] aluminum. I mean, yes, but that would that kind of feedback next week. We don't need to solve it,

[3:09:09] but let's get some money in the budget. But if you agree, as the council say, yes, we should find some

[3:09:13] way to make that grandstand appearance less. And whatever, that's great direction. And we can

[3:09:18] plug something. Yeah. Well, I'd like to hear what the poster board came up with last week,

[3:09:23] Well, they literally threw one of the poster board members only.

[3:09:27] They just kind of threw it out at the end as like food for thought, like start thinking about it.

[3:09:31] So I'm sure it's probably going to be a discussion for the next time.

[3:09:34] I know it was a late agenda item and I know that the meeting went way long and I, yes, I know it was more like,

[3:09:40] think about it, come back with some ideas.

[3:09:42] It is a topic that they're interested in.

[3:09:44] Let's think about enough that we can put a number in the budget.

[3:09:46] But I think we really should think about what that entryway is going to look like.

[3:09:55] Because I mean, we saw some drafts where there was much more of...

[3:10:00] We have a kind of a facade when you came around the roundabout. And I think even if there's like some planting on the corner of the rodeo, I think that was soft in it, but I think there's, you know, I think there's some stuff that we can do to just kinda make that experience better.

[3:10:17] So we're doing your solve, but let's have a reasonable number in the budget so we can work on it next year.

[3:10:24] Okay.

[3:10:24] We, who's ever here can work on it next year.

[3:10:31] That's a great example of those kinds of projects that we've got to plug them in.

[3:10:35] Yes, please.

[3:10:35] It's great.

[3:10:36] Let's know as a priority.

[3:10:39] I apologize I wasn't here at the last meeting, so I have a question that might have already been.

[3:10:43] I don't think it was.

[3:10:44] But the snowmass in exterior, so there's carryover from this past year, what was accomplished and what was budgeted for last year, for the exterior improvements on this?

[3:11:02] Two million dollars total is budgeted.

[3:11:04] Today, the only thing that's been completed is the roof.

[3:11:07] When we put the budget which was two or three hundred thousand.

[3:11:11] Originally?

[3:11:12] No, when we just did the roof of the slush.

[3:11:14] Oh, yeah.

[3:11:15] Let me just say 300,000.

[3:11:16] I can't remember the number.

[3:11:17] And so what we were hoping to do is get much further along in the rails and the doors.

[3:11:22] And when we put it out the bid, we learned that we didn't have the detail that the contractors needed.

[3:11:27] So we needed to pull the bid back.

[3:11:29] And so when we put the budget together, we anticipated having a million spent and a million to go.

[3:11:34] And I don't think we're going to have that million spent this year.

[3:11:36] And so we will end up rolling over 1.7 million.

[3:11:40] I can't remember the roof cost, but that difference.

[3:11:42] We will roll over more money to next year's project.

[3:11:45] And so that's exterior improvements?

[3:11:47] Will that include landscape improvements along the pathway of the benefit of child?

[3:11:52] And so I think we've got, I'm doing the budget for my head, but it's like about 250 or

[3:11:57] 200 for that park area.

[3:12:00] And if you've been up there in the last two weeks or so, we have started doing this.

[3:12:04] There's a significant cleaning, whatever.

[3:12:06] whatever. We know the water feature needs to be improved. If you've been there before, the stairway, of course you've been there before, but I mean, if the stairway used to end in the cul-de-sac, and the snow would always get pushed over into that, and so it didn't work, that stairway is going to be moved to end up closer to the front door, the snowmessing, and so that that stairway can become a year-round, that walkway can become a year-round. And so those all those kinds of things are being worked through right now.

[3:12:32] And will that budget expand to include further improvements down the Benedict

[3:12:38] Trailer? Is that just the way the council appropriated it was snowmessing?

[3:12:44] So it's just that block, call it.

[3:12:46] And do we have anything in the budget for anything more on Benedict Trail?

[3:12:53] Not right now. Essentially right now it's private property, not essentially.

[3:12:56] It is private property.

[3:12:58] So if you all said, hey, we want to really find ways to improve the Benedict Trail, we could start doing that.

[3:13:06] But at this point, it's all about property.

[3:13:09] There's an easement that you can walk through on the sidewalk, but we don't own anything to make improvements to besides because we bought the end, we own that property there.

[3:13:19] But again, that's another good example, if you said, hey, this is something we want to be looking at, start planning for and thinking about.

[3:13:27] I mean, there could be easements acquired in all sorts of ways to do things, but that needs to be a priority set by y'all.

[3:13:33] I mean, honestly, I think it's an incredible experience for visitors and locals alike, and we used to use it all the time, and now it's not connected anymore, it's disconnected, and it really, I think, could be an incredible, walkable feature to our town that keeps you off the sidewalk from, you know, you're not going to go home.

[3:13:54] but the question now is because everybody's different attitudes about strangers and stuff that, you know,

[3:14:03] were the people that owned those easements or owned that area that we need to walk through?

[3:14:08] Are they agreeable to improving it or are they saying we don't want people from our house?

[3:14:15] Interesting, yeah.

[3:14:16] I think that would be step one.

[3:14:18] Yeah, well, we had a walk through schedule, but I mean, it's a way different trail now than it once was.

[3:14:28] Yeah, I agree.

[3:14:29] It really does go close to a lot of condos.

[3:14:32] It's just like some stone steps in places.

[3:14:39] It's not what it once was.

[3:14:43] But it could be, I mean, if we wanted it to be.

[3:14:45] So really the question should be should we put some money into the budget to study it like a hundred thousand dollars or something and

[3:14:52] So we've got you've done that if you remember when we did the Connecting the Nodes which we put I think believe full on a thousand start with that's one of the nodes in the

[3:15:00] The candidate trail was one of those. And what we said is, let's tackle between the center and base village first. And so if you guys, I don't even think you have to be in a budget exercise necessarily. But if you said, hey, let's make sure this project happens next year. I just, again, I need that kind of direction. And we can find out ways to do it, but off the cuff. I don't even, I think we've got some dollars. We could start with, but we're starting with that. We have dollars for next little be in next year's budget. You know, I'm too far off the cuff, but yes, I think we could. But again, if that's something to think about,

[3:15:29] Let us come back to you with a plan and we can say here's where we think we should do this.

[3:15:37] Why don't you just let the next mean just throw out or something at us that what we might consider.

[3:15:42] And what I'm hoping is that I remember this correctly and we've got a big chunk and we just need to execute the next phase that plan, get the next phase going.

[3:15:50] All right.

[3:15:50] I don't want to commit to that.

[3:15:52] Well, and in the meantime, it might be interesting to just explore, you know, what accessible routes we even could accomplish.

[3:16:01] to connect that if it's not, you can't connect it, because we've got private entities that are not going to welcome that, then it might be a midpoint, but it's interesting.

[3:16:12] And that's why, if I'm remembering right and there are dollars, that first thing we might spend money on is let's get an easement, let's do a survey, let's find out where all the easements are, let's find out where our rights are, let's find out where those roadblocks may or may not be, and that might be that first step.

[3:16:27] I mean, like how much we've just said, get all that information.

[3:16:32] I mean, I think I'd like to see that in the budget.

[3:16:35] And so, we'll get some members, I think it's got information on this.

[3:16:39] We know what we got, a lot of money in this.

[3:16:41] Yeah, we'll be walking through these next week, and we'll be here as well, so.

[3:16:47] I think we need to do some outreach to those property owners as well, because we don't want to end up in a lawsuit.

[3:16:53] Oh, definitely, but I think we first need to understand who owns this or do we own this?

[3:17:00] Do they own that?

[3:17:00] Do we have an easement before we talk to them?

[3:17:03] That's all I'm saying.

[3:17:03] Let's do our homework.

[3:17:05] Whatever it takes to do that.

[3:17:07] And then we can talk to people if there's something we want to do.

[3:17:10] Definitely.

[3:17:12] I just remember I was really excited about it until I went and started walking in.

[3:17:16] And I was like, you know, much recently, you mean, yeah, I mean, it's just because you

[3:17:21] know what it was.

[3:17:21] Yeah, you end up being dropped out like in a middle of nowhere because they took out those steps and stuff. Yeah, right. I agree.

[3:17:33] I'm the agenda for tonight. Did mention the EAB request? Are we going to talk about that?

[3:17:40] Was that tonight or I can't remember. Well, unless I looked at something wrong, but you were okay. I'm sorry. I was I got disoriented because that was not okay.

[3:17:49] Okay, it did say that on there.

[3:17:51] So let me go to that real quick, and I'm going to do that.

[3:17:54] So obviously the EAB, that obviously, that is obvious.

[3:17:59] They did make a request for a position you all, and it was not in the budget.

[3:18:04] And so the idea that I'd like to put forward is that we include an additional $300,000 from the re-op fund.

[3:18:13] That's what we talked about, re-op fund.

[3:18:16] And for potential consulting services to help reach those goals.

[3:18:21] Their point largely was, hey, there's a lot of things we should be doing more of.

[3:18:27] And I think we all would all agree making advances towards those goals are a very good idea.

[3:18:33] But hiring a full-time position is difficult.

[3:18:37] And so if we took, came back to you all with without necessarily a plan of action,

[3:18:42] but a budget number to say, here's a chunk that we could do.

[3:18:45] And sustainability plan is, it's either 8 or 12 steps, and I'm blanking which is what it is.

[3:18:51] But there's ways to do that.

[3:18:53] And core does, they focus on buildings, and that's two of the 10 potentially.

[3:18:58] And so maybe we do something with core, or maybe we do something with somebody else, but

[3:19:01] we say, okay, what parts of the sustainability plan do you want to tackle, and

[3:19:06] work with the AB on that, and use it as a consulting service rather than a full time employee.

[3:19:12] We already think that that might be.

[3:19:13] I'm going to agree with it.

[3:19:14] I think it's hard to bring somebody in that role

[3:19:18] and give them real authority into an existing organization.

[3:19:22] It's not necessarily have a whole department.

[3:19:24] I mean, when you look up to the vastment

[3:19:26] and they have like 10 people, yeah, but evolve over time.

[3:19:29] Right.

[3:19:30] I mean, I get, I mean, yeah, it's like two hours of Greg's week.

[3:19:34] So it's not a whole thing.

[3:19:35] Did, did you, does the AAB have you discussed this idea with them

[3:19:43] versus, like, hiring a full-time person.

[3:19:46] I have not.

[3:19:47] I mean, I think one of their points when they came to talk to us is they just wanted to make

[3:19:51] sure there was someone that was here that was sort of coordinating between all the different

[3:19:56] departments.

[3:19:56] I mean, that was my takeaway from what they said when they came.

[3:20:00] Yes, that's how I understand it also, and I honestly think that would be a very difficult position to hire for. And I mean, to the director's credit, I mean, you can talk to Julia or Anne, or when they think about their projects, they do think about environmental issues. And that's when we're doing the design for housing. We know that we should be going towards electrical. And these are not foreign concepts to any of us. And so I don't know that that coordination needs to happen. I think somebody telling us what's the next best next step would be great.

[3:20:30] I mean, we know that our biggest carbon footprint, biggest component of our carbon

[3:20:34] footprint is building heat.

[3:20:36] And so how do you get rid of that?

[3:20:38] You'd green it up with electricity, and how to do that, it takes physical dollars

[3:20:42] to convert.

[3:20:43] Sotomayor.

[3:20:43] And so, isn't this really what we did with CORE?

[3:20:46] Well, I'm tracking on CORE to they explored four buildings.

[3:20:50] So yeah, CORE is done, they've recently in the last month given us an assessment

[3:20:55] on how to do one of our buildings and I believe three private buildings, and, you know,

[3:20:59] how you do that, and so that is done, and Corridor would be happy to continue that forward.

[3:21:04] It's expensive, or I think there's other components of sustainability.

[3:21:10] There's composting.

[3:21:12] There's lots of, like I said, there's 10 other ways we go.

[3:21:16] And if Cor's the answer, then he could say, hey, let's get Corridor to the building.

[3:21:20] So if that's where we want to make that investment, they can make that recommendation.

[3:21:24] And I'm just kind of saying, rather than hiring a person to kind of work through these things,

[3:21:29] This might be the perfect chance to bring on a consultant to help us lead that effort, whatever it might be.

[3:21:34] Whether it's core, with building sustainability, whether it's something else that we find is a good idea.

[3:21:39] It might be a good workshop session early in the year with the AB and if we want to bring a consultant or to a facility.

[3:21:48] But just look at all the things that we're doing, all things we could be doing, set some priorities and direction instead of just sort of quite clear what we're doing.

[3:21:57] may be here from department heads to on where they're at with their yeah I feel

[3:22:02] like part of what they were looking for is accountability meaning you know

[3:22:08] we don't just say oh yes we want to do that but there's some ways to measure or you

[3:22:15] know even police how we're doing things and so as long as a consultant can

[3:22:23] provide that, I feel like then that could be accomplishing what they maybe want to see.

[3:22:32] And accountability, I don't know that consultant can do that.

[3:22:35] But I mean, it's, somebody observed earlier, I mean, we don't put a lot of staff time towards it.

[3:22:40] I mean, it's just, we haven't.

[3:22:42] And so if you all said this is going to be a priority and we're going to spend more on it, we can do that.

[3:22:47] That's where you guys get paid the big bucks for.

[3:22:49] Well, I feel like they could say this is how you do accountability, not necessarily.

[3:22:54] They would be the ones doing it, yeah.

[3:22:55] But again, that's where I, after knowing that you received the presentation,

[3:23:01] assuming you'd want some kind of way to be responsive to that request, the idea was let's

[3:23:07] use re-up dollars and using outside consultant.

[3:23:09] And again, that's, that was my response.

[3:23:11] And that's good.

[3:23:12] Well, I love to have a work session where we just sort of can talk about all the stuff.

[3:23:24] We've got it, I've got it in my ear, we can port it on to you for sure.

[3:23:28] But let's, I think we should put it on the agenda so we can review it.

[3:23:32] Oh, and then let me get it to you to read first.

[3:23:34] And then if you want to do that.

[3:23:36] It's lengthy.

[3:23:38] I mean, I'm sorry.

[3:23:38] Let me get it to you.

[3:23:40] I'll email it to you tomorrow.

[3:23:41] But I just want to make sure if we're making that kind of investment,

[3:23:43] we're getting something out of it.

[3:23:45] And so let me forward it to you and then when you guys want to get a schedule that absolutely will do that

[3:23:50] But I'd like you to look at it first before we get that scheduled. Thanks.

[3:23:56] Okay

[3:24:00] Anything else?

[3:24:04] Yeah, we're in demand at its point. If there is other things or whatever that we

[3:24:08] We're trying to find a sweet spot between not killing anyone's insides and making sure you get the detail you want

[3:24:13] So if there are other things, please let us know otherwise next week will be

[3:24:18] Capital good capital

[3:24:22] Okay, right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you both. All right. We're adjourned. We're adjourned. Thank you.

[3:24:32] All right. Thanks, everybody.

Town Council - Work Session

Agenda

Transcript