Board of Trustees - Regular Meeting

Second, mayor. And are you recording?

Ready, guys? Okay. like to call to order the town of Frraasier Board of Trustees meeting on Wednesday, February 18th at 6:01 p.m. Can I have a roll call, please? Katie Fischer, Adam Quickland, Peggy Smith, Julie White, Louis Gregory, Katie Souls, and Brian Cirven. Could I have an approval of the agenda with an addition? We're going to she go adding an emergency.

Uh we'll be adding the an emergency executive session to the agenda. It will occur after the business enhancement grant awards um component. So move second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I I oppose. Okay. Could I have a motion to approve the consent agenda which includes the minutes for February 4th, 2026 and resolution 2026201 approving energy and mineral impact assistance fund grant application for Frasier public works facility. So moved. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor?

I. Any opposed? Okay. All right. We'll move on now to open forum. This is for business not on the agenda. We'll allow people in the audience to speak first and then the people online after that. You'll have three minutes of time um before uh forfeiting to the next person. Thanks. Good evening, Glenn Trainer, Chief of Police. Uh I'm here tonight with very mixed emotions because I am announcing that I'm going to be retiring as chief of police starting the 1st of June.

Wow. Uh 21 years ago I was hired as the chief for the towns of Frraasier and Winter Park. Adam Quickland was on the board at that time. Uh but it has been my honor and my privilege to serve each and every one of you over the last 21 years. I am I have mixed emotions because I've become close friends with almost all of you in this room and I am incredibly thankful for the opportunities that you have given me during that time. Um I'm not leaving the county but over the last several months it has occurred to me that every day I spend at work is one less day I get to spend fishing or or with my family. And so I have made the decision that I'm going to be retiring around the 1st of June. Obviously, uh, you know, John will work with Michael as far as where we go from here, but I just want to thank you for your support of me and our police department. Um, I'm leaving it in very wonderful hands because I worked with the finest law enforcement officers that I've ever been around. So, thank you so much from the bottom of my heart. and uh I hope to see you all out and about in the future.

Thank you.

Well, I for one would say that there's we couldn't have had a better chief. Um this is a a complicated valley and I think you traverse it um perfectly. So, thank you for everything that you've done. Thank you, Glenn.

Yeah, thank you. I think you're the moral center of our society, of our community. So, thank you. All right. Anyone else in the room? Okay. Is anyone online for open forum? Okay. We'll keep moving. Um discussion, possible action regarding uh the treasures report. Lori to speak. I think I'm really sad. I know.

Changing of the guard. Okay. Yeah.

Um trying not to tear up a little bit. Um good evening, mayor and trustees. Lori Waters, uh, finance director for the town of Frraasier. And here we go with the treasures report today. Let's see if this guy works. Um, okay, our 2026 GF reserve and operating position. Yeah, we've been working hard on that St. Louis landing. We've been using the funds um and keeping things going. So, that does look a little bit lower than last time, and that's to be expected. We did a lot of uh there were some big invoices that came in. We're keeping it going. Um the fund balances uh for February 1st. Um that's about where we're at. It is about 8,35 and the general fund. The rest of the funds are doing their their usual thing. And um so we're not in horrible shape. Uh good news is um I'm working diligently right now um anticipating uh the reimbursement from Dola uh which will be 1,42,352 uh for this quarter 4 goaround. Um, and yes, it's diligently working hard because I don't know why I thought it'd be easier these grant re reimbursements. Oh my goodness. Little bit of a challenge, but that's okay. We're going to work through it. And they are great ladies to work with and and staff there to work with. So, we get through it even though they always find something. Um, and uh, we have also received an additional $350,000 in supplemental funds for the Strong Communities Grant. Um, Sarah does a

great job trying to find all the financing we can find to help everything out. So, that's going along and looks kind of good on the big screen up there. Look at that black dot way up there all by itself. That is your December sales. No, I checked it. I checked it three times. It act it actually deposited into Colorado Trust. That amount deposited. It was real. Um I remember standing here last month going I'm kind of optimistic. I did not see that coming. So those are no

beures like I'm not going to Christmas shop. I'm shopping at home. That's part of it. But it's also November's number, right? For Oh, that's December. That's December. That's December sales tax number. Okay,

that was Christmas. I was not hallucinating. It was busy as heck around here at Christmas. And so that total amount really was $724,951. And yes, wow. Um it was higher than any sales tax we have collected. Um since I've been here, we've usually gotten in that 6 650 675 range. I've never seen anything like that. And yes, it was 38% higher than December 2024. And I did that three or four times because those numbers were just phenomenal. Um, but

there was no snow. Yeah. People at the coffee shop. Well, let's take a look here. There's your short

short-term uh rentals right there. December. See that great big blue bar standing up there real tall in December. That was your short-term rentals. So, people were coming. They were staying. Uh short-term rentals were uh 75% higher. Yeah, that one way up there. Uh 75% higher than December 2024. And yeah, I had to do that three or four times to believe it. Um so they and it actually went up to 14% of your rental. So people were coming. They were coming. They were making the best of it and they were

shopping. So, wow. Yeah, I'm sorry I had to keep repeating the same word over and over again. Wow. Uh, remote sellers did okay. Nothing. Uh, it was not people buying stuff online. Remote sellers stayed within kind of an average range there. Um, no big pluses there. Um, the total was about 32,611. um which was you know about a little bit higher than um December 24, not too much. Um and right now your budget analysis for January, we're not going over budget yet, so we're in good shape. Um be I'll be watching some of those numbers um and really anticipating again those bonds when those come in. that's going to really help offset um using uh the town's cash to keep St. Louis going. Uh but yeah, no big um no big changes going on except for obviously, you know, your Frasier Housing Authority is really big. Um and that's where we're going to be running all of the costs for the St. Louis landing through and the bonds will run through there, too. So, revenue to come in that section. Any questions?

It's great. Thanks, Lori. You bet. Glad to bring some good news. Yeah. Okay. I'm a little pessimistic about January cuz it's always a slowdown month, but when I went shopping at Safeway on Sunday, the place was cleaned out and I was like, "Huh, what do you know?" So, we'll see what happens. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, update. Grand County Wildfire Council, Jessica Ron.

Good evening, town. Thank you for having me. Um, I'm Jessica Ron. I'm from the Grand County Wildfire Council. I'm the executive director. Um, so we're going to be going through uh a summary of last year and then some plans for 2026. So for Oh, thank you. for a summary of our 2025 mitigation, education, and funding successes. Um, we put almost $500,000 on the ground of funding that we brought in, and we had almost $500,000 in cash match as well. Um, inind match was about $120,000 for a total of about $1.1 million of work. And that led to about 730 acres that were treated. Um between our cost share programs, our large projects, and our community chipping days for education successes. Um we had over 780 volunteer hours with over 700 contacts. Um that's between public events that we do, trainings that we do, our chipping days, um fire restrictions education that we assist with at businesses throughout the county. um road safety project, homeowner education. Um we started a new series uh PBS documentary showings and then HOA meetings are another common place where we get contacts. Um total funding awarded to be spent from 2025 to 2030 currently is about 2.85 million. The majority of this is a $2.5 million grant that we received from the federal government through a grant called um community wildfire defense grants, CWDG. That money is to be spent mitigating about 800 acres uh southwest of the town

of Graanby and including up um into the Red Dirt Hill area in Homestead Hills.

Thank you. Yes. Here we go. Um, so if you are a property owner, you should have received this insert in your property tax mailer. All of this information is also available on our website. That's be wildfire ready.org. In 2025, we again hosted a chipping day at East Grand Fire Station. Um, in 2025, countywide, we had 341 acres mitigated through the community chipping days, and we had almost 300 participants for this specific East Grand Chipping Day. We had 76 acres mitigated, estimated by the property owners that are bringing their slash, uh, with 65 unique participants that day. So for 2026, we're going to be having an East Grand Chipping day at the same fire station um here outside Frasier. Um we again advertise those through Skyhigh News. Um we send them to all of our partners and we also have a newsletter where all this information is located as well as on the website. So for anyone that hasn't signed up for our newsletter yet, um I encourage you to do so. Let's see. Um so our cost share programs continue. We have two different cost share programs. One is a home hazard ignition zone program that focuses on the first 100 ft around homes and then the egress so 20 ft on either side of your driveway. And then we have a larger strategic fuels cost share program and that is to connect uh larger projects especially communities to encourage encourage larger mitigation projects to be completed. Um it costs less if you combine them all together. So we work

with communities to get projects like that done through that program. Anyone can participate in that. That's property owner in uh Grand County. Those programs start with a free uh assessment, wildfire risk assessment, and a firefighter or our mitigation specialist goes out to your home and goes through your specific wildfire risk around your home and gives you a report that you can then execute. And with the cost share programs, you can help defay some of those costs as well. We are also holding our living with fire training series again. Uh that's at Grandfire in Graanby. So I hope some of you will consider joining us for those. Um again, all the events, everything is on our website. This year we added a training on the changes in the building code for the state of Colorado's wildland urban interface or wildfire resiliency code. We call it the WOOI. Wildland urban interface is where the forest meets the homes essentially. So the building code will apply to Grand County. Um we are going to do a training with a lot of our partners on May 15th in uh Graanby. Last year our most our best attended uh training was the property insurance one. We're going to have that again July 17th also in Graanby. and that's going to talk about legislation and changes um to insurance in the state of Colorado mostly and give you ideas on how to defay some of your costs there as well. Okay. Um so we're also hosting a different PBS documentary showing this year. It's called Fire Lives Here. Um, if you're familiar with the Northern Colorado Firehed Collaborative, they work to put

this documentary together with PBS. Um, and basically it talks about how to put, they call it beneficial fire on the landscape to reduce, um, the chance that a large catastrophic wildfire will occur. So, we're going to have documentary showings. Um, we're going to do one at the Foundry Theater in Winter Park again this year. That's going to be on July 1st. Um and we also have a panel that comes after that and talks about um Grand County specific things and answers questions from the audience. Um road safety project. So we started this in 2024. The idea behind the road safety project is to try to expand areas where firefighters can stage or take a stand along the county roads as well as allow people to evacuate safely with a larger gap um when there is a wildfire. So, what we're doing is going along the road about 10 ft on either side of the county roads and clearing out um trees and slash and creating a a wider area for those reasons. Um in 2025, we mitigated about 23 miles of road, about 140 acres. Um we work with the Grand Wildland team on this. They are generally the contractor that is a team that is made up of Grand Fire and Grand Lake Fire District. Um, last year the project did complete some roadside mitigation in East Grand Fire District and East Grand Fire District firefighters donated some of their time to get that mitigation done. This year we are planning on on about 10 miles of road in East Grant. Um, so we're working with the Grand Wildland team and with East Grand Fire District to identify those roads and then we'll go out and educate the property owners along those routes. So, we're

encouraging property owners to take um their slash on their property, pull it into the rightaway, and then the team will chip it for free. So, last year it was like 40 to 50 acres of that 140 acres that was homeowner participation. So, very successful last year. Firewise communities, uh we also work with communities to become firewise. These are sites in East Grand um where we have fireways communities. We are also working with a lot of additional communities to try to get them across the finish line. Um the last few years we've added three or four communities each year to Firewise. Um you only need eight homes to start a Firewise community and it doesn't have to be an HOA. It can be loosely affiliated. It doesn't have even have to be contiguous. Um, so if anyone's interested that's listening uh online or in the room or uh anything with the town of Frraasier, please reach out to us. Um, we are very creative and how we get these things accomplished and this goes nicely handinhand with the um, cost share programs that we have as well. Project map. Um, so let me grab my legend here. So you can see in the bright green that is the CWDG Graanby grant that I have been talking about in the darker blue in kind of the center of that map that is the West Frasier fuels break. So for 10 years now, Colorado State Forest Service, US Forest Service, Grant County Wildfire Council, fire districts have been working on clearing

and thinning areas throughout there to mitigate the wildfire risk in that area. Okay, so that's my last handout. Um, I wanted to say thank you to all of you for the administrative grant that we got last year. We used it for advertising for the wildfire council um regarding like community chipping days and the the kinds of events that we do, the training series. Um and then we also used it to purchase materials for our community chipping signs. Um we also use administrative funding to support purchasing materials including these fire information pamphlets. I've left some over there um for anybody that would like one. and then fridge magnets with evacuation information. Um, so one of the things that we're doing, we're working to get one of these in each short-term rental unit and a handful of these pamphlets. So we're thinking that's a way to reach visitors when they come into the county, get them educated. If there is a wildfire, this is important to know. And then if there are fire restrictions, this is the information that goes along with that. Um, we've moved to a new office. Uh, we're over in Tavern Ashe now. So, we're in East Grand Fire District. Uh, we outgrew our space at uh at Grand Fire District in Graanby. So, we are there with our new office manager who started yesterday who's going to help us um hopefully get more organized and then reach more people in our community.

2020, you guys. So 2013 was when the wildfire fire council was first envisioned and there was some funding from the BLM at that time. 2015 incorporated as a nonprofit and then yes there was a lot more interest obviously after East Troublesome and Williams Fork Fires. Um so I started in 2023. Um our current board worked hard to get some grants to support some staff and so with myself and our mitigation specialists we've been able to expand quite a bit. Thank you.

So you spoke of a federal grant at 2.5 million and I think the project was from 25 to 30 in years. How secure is that? How or is that payments or?

So everything that we have been told from last fall when it was first announced and awarded, including a uh statement from Brooke Rollins, the uh Department of Interior Secretary, I believe, supporting the grant being announced and and making a statement about the great work that was to come. We feel relatively secure. Um we have not received the funding yet. Colorado State Forest Service is working with the federal government. So they have to sign anou first there and then it'll come back to us. So when we first talked in October, they expected that we would have the official award like well around now, maybe March. So I feel relatively confident that it's coming, but you know, anything could happen. Quick question. The the Firewise community Yeah. designation, what does that what does that get you? Is it does it get you reduced insurance premium or how does I mean what's the benefit of that for a neighbor?

Sure.

Um there are a few benefits including so um life and property safety first of all as the requirement is that every property does at least an hour of mitigation or the equivalent volunteer time of work on their property. Um most of our communities do a lot more than that. Um and then the like you said with insurance, we're hoping in the future that insurance companies will recognize firewise communities and that designation will allow reduced premiums or just keeping insurance in general. Um, one thing to think about with insurance is the new state of Colorado law, um, House Bill 1182, and that is requiring insurance companies to disclose how they rate wildfire risk in their models and also to recognize mitigation that folks are doing around the home. So hopefully in combination with some of these things, it will get a little bit uh better when it comes to insurance premiums.

And how come there are no firewise communities in the town of Frraasier or Winter Park? Maybe those two are in Winter Park, but in Frraasier there's nothing. Are towns a eligible for that? Absolutely. Yes. Um why don't we have any? Good question. Good question. Um so let's see. Uh, Elk Run was new in 2024. Um, Ranch Creek Ranch was also new last year. Yeah. Threeear action plan. Ranch Creek Ranch. Yeah. Okay.

Um, so anybody, like I said, anybody can reach out to us and we will help get you organized. We have a volunteer that we call the firewise liaison. And so he runs through the process with everyone. Um, with that administrative support, it's not too arduous. Um, a lot of it is the community contact and getting people interested in doing the mitigation and becoming involved. Okay. And I see some people from Grand Park here that maybe this is something they should look into. Thank you, sir. And rendevous. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Off premise sign for Fraser Valley Arts. Garrett.

Great. Good evening, mayor and board. Garrett Scott, town planner. Uh, I don't have a formal presentation tonight, so I'll just kind of talk through the staff report that was prepared. So, um, one of the applications that was received with the business enhancement grants that is on the agenda later this evening was a proposal from Frraasier Valley Arts to replace the existing uh, Hillies Hooker Towing Service pole sign that is located outside the Frasier Post Office building with a more attractive, modern, and electronic sign. Um, in review of that grant request, town staff determined that the proposal meets the definition of what is called an off-remise sign per our sign regulations. Basically, this is any sign that is used for promoting an interest other than that of the business, individual product or service available on the premises of where the sign is located. Again, because this sign would advertise Frasier Valley Arts, but be located on the property of the post office. Um, per our sign code, all off- premise signs require board of trustees approval. Um, town staff informed the applicant of this requirement and they then submitted a sign permit request. Uh, so that is what this request is. It is a signed permit for this off- premise sign. Um, and we are reviewing and evaluating this separately from the later associated business enhancement grant. Um, for reference, town staff is aware of two other off-remise signs in Frraasier. Um, one is for Sharkies Eery that is that sign is located on town property and is um annually renewed via license agreement. And a second off-remise sign is for the Colorado Adventure Park, um, which is located outside of the town of Frasier, but the sign advertising that property is located in the town. Um so the staff report outlines um the criteria by which an off-permise sign should be evaluated. Uh town staff

determined that all the criteria were either met or partially met. Um the reason why some of the criteria are partially met is because of the fact that this existing pole sign where it currently sits is actually within town rightway for Park Avenue. It is not actually on the property of the post office itself. So given that um simply you know at this time uh staff is seeking uh more of a a motion or um recommendation from the board of how the applicant should proceed given the sign's present location and given um the need to resolve um in some way the sign's existing location. So, um, in staff's view, the applicant has the option to remove the existing pole sign from where it is, uh, construct a new sign that is on the, uh, property of the post office, and that could be approved as an off-remise sign on their property. Alternatively, uh, the town could allow for this new sign to be placed um on the existing pole sign structure and remain in the town's rideway. Um but then it would be subject to approval of a license agreement that would be renewed annually. Um staff recommends that the board proceed with directing the applicant to move the sign out of the town rightofway uh just because uh it would avoid the need for those annual license agreement approvals. Um and some additional considerations are things such as um uh within the packet are some selected pages from the Winter Park Frasier signage and wayfinding master plan that cons contain some kind of conceptual schematic designs um that are being considered for a broader cohesive signage plan that spans from Frasier to the Winter Park Resort and everywhere in

between. um you know, it may be appropriate to direct the applicant to um design their sign in a way that's consistent with these conceptual plans or simply provide a design that is agreeable to the board. Um I do have a video from the applicant that I'll play, but I'll just pause at this time if there's any questions for staff. Is there um electrical power to the existing Hillies sign? Yes, there is. Um, however, the applicant has indicated so right now it's powered through a um a wire and they would bury that wire underground. Okay. But it does have a existing power an extension cord. Sure.

Anyway, okay. Thanks. What do they want to do? The new owners of the post office.

The the property owners of the post office. Um, I guess generally speaking, they have provided their approval. um that is required for an off- premise sign for the property owner to give their approval. Um I guess as far as you know beyond that um that that's only the requirement per town code I guess. Um, part of the applicant's desire is that um, so part of the sign is proposed to be uh, static Frasier Valley Arts logo and uh, the bottom half of the sign is proposed to be like an electronic changeable message sign that could advertise various events in town whether they're, you know, held by the town, Frasier Valley Arts or some other entity. Um, kind of similar to in the town of Winter Park, there are actually two signs of this type. one at the um rendevous Event Center Park and Amphitheater and then one at um Cooper Creek Square. So I think that's the applicant's vision and intention behind the purpose of this site.

Who changes the sign? They they do they would uh they are proposing to operate and maintain the sign and therefore control the the messaging that is on the sign. Okay. So we'll be able to use it for town events or whatever. It's not just exclusive to the racial athlete arts. Correct. Because we don't have it. We don't have any electronic signage, do we? No. The market maybe. Yeah.

So on an offremise sign, are they then considered a tenant? And I'm asking this because of the uh 040 application where they said Verizon is a tenant and they asked for $25,000 based on their three tenants or or whatever that structure is. And I know I'm getting slightly outside of the subject, but these two are overlapping specifically tonight. And I'm wondering if if there's an off- premise sign and that's done by a lease. Is that signed then considered a tenant that could be a business enhancement grant in the future? Yeah.

Valley art. So it's not we're not Well, yeah. And I I guess I wasn't trying to knock your your grant. I was just asking about the situation because we're going to have more and more buildings that are have multiple tenants and are mixed use and those kind of things and and and so if we're allowing I guess uh non-tenant tenants, you know, there's no personnel to Verizon Verizon. Yeah. But but Verizon was listed as a tanic.

Yeah. I I'm just m you know making sure that a future offremise sign is not considered a tenant.

Yeah. And Adam, we can get into the merits of the application for the business enhancement grant when we get to that portion of the agenda, but I think in part what you're getting at potentially in order for Frasier Valley Arts to be eligible for that business enhancement grant, we would have them sign a lease for the sign with the property owner um who has granted permission for them to do it. So, she's offering it as a donation, but they could sign, you know, the $0 lease or whatever. Um, that would allow them to be eligible. Um, I think the other thing you might be getting to is this question of can the post office building then ask for a higher grant award?

They put three more signs on there and we've had four tenants and that's another $75,000 I'm eligible for. I mean, that said, we can moving forward tighten up those requirements as need be. But again, just because they have five signed tenants doesn't mean we are going to award them $25,000 per signed tenant. Um, and again, it's not specific to this grant application. It's just more the situation and if it's repeated in in the future. Well, I think and I agree with staff that it should be moved out of our rideway because

um it should be moved out of our rideway because Park Avenue already access getting in and out of there. We've had comments complaints with the increase in traffic from our housing project. We're going to need as much of our right away as we can get. So, where do we propose that it goes then? Well, it's the land owner and the public arts can work that out. I mean, they they can, but maybe they want some input from the board. I don't know. Should we ask the lander to come up? Let's donate. We don't I I was fine with it in the right way. But or that for later that later.

Well, I I think first I'll answer Mayor Cinnick's question and then I'll play um Steve Fitz Fitzgerald provided us with a video, so I'll I'll play that here shortly. Um Steph has talked with Steve the applicant um about this broadly and what I'm showing here was in the packet. It is a site plan um from when that Verizon cell tower was built on the property. Uh you can see where my cursor is right now. That's where the sign is currently located and you see the dash line right below it. That is the property line. So it's approximately 2 and a half to three feet just outside of the property line. It is kind of uh trivial, frankly, to move it um onto the property. Uh may require modifying this curb here um so that there's sufficient space um and that the sign is protected behind a curb. But I think, you know, it shouldn't be too much of an effort to move it onto the property, but still be in relatively the same location. Can you just ask a tenant if they if they would like to take the risk of signing the lease and maybe having to move it someday or move it now? I mean, it does I don't think it's really two feet is a that big of a deal.

Deb, could you come up? Hi, I'm Deb Culig and I work with Xerx40. We are the property owners for the post office. We've been working with Frasier Alley Arts. We've um offered this signage to get rid of the Hilly Hooker sign um for Katie. She wants the bar.

We have asked them to if they want that sign to rebuild it, we would like the right to look at that also. Um, we would also like the right since we do have a tenant, the US post office is very specific about what can be on that sign and what cannot be on that sign. So, uh, we're working with Steve Fitzger and that we have talked with him about he called and said that this was an issue. We were unaware of that because that did not appear in our title insurance when we purchased the property in uh, June of last year. Also, um it's been up 3540 years is my understanding. Regardless of that, we just told him that we could work with him and get it inside the property line just to make it easy. Um again, it's not a lease. We're not going after a grant. We don't want anything to do with the sign. We are just going to continue to own the property. Everything else is donated um to Frasier Valley Arts. Um, if it stayed in the right ofway, would the US Postal Service have any say over what goes on the sign? Because it's not technically on the property that they're leasing.

Means their lease has specific boundaries. Um, that encompasses not only the building itself, but where their parking spaces are. And apparently that is Steve said one and a half feet. Um, we've had somebody else look at it. They've said approximately two feet, two and a half feet. They have to put in new electrical anyway. So, this is the time to do it is why they're they're moving that sign, you know, just get it done now. So, I think you you know asking Steve and I shouldn't be speaking for Steve. I actually called him and said, "Are you going to be here?" And he goes, "No." Um,

but I I think this is the time and the town should just ask him to move it out of that right away. Although I I will point out every map we've looked at, it's all different. So weird. And I also want to know what you're going to do with that speed building that's halfway through the calendar. But um every single one of them is different. I actually saw one map that it is right on the property line. So I don't know where it is, but ask them to move it. I don't think it'll be an issue. Okay.

And we will have no rights to that sign. Um, we are giving him an open-ended lease on that. So, uh, not a lease, excuse me, an open-ended donation on that sign because Frasier Valley Arts does not want to go in and invest the kind of money they're going to invest in this and then turn around and have us go, "Nope, we don't want to do it this year." So, we're giving him an open and just saying we're donating it for as long as they need it.

That's great. I will just add as part of Frasier Valley Arts business enhancement grant application, they do speak to the intention of also advertising town and downtown development authority events, but it would be a Fraser Valley Arts sign. And Steve is also trying to design it such that if a better if a different more advantageous location became available that the sign could be moved in the future. Um, but yeah, Steve was traveling at the moment, so not able to attend, hence the video. If you'd like to share that, let's check it out. Sure.

Do we need a motion for this?

Hi, everyone. This is uh Steve Fitzgerald uh the leader of Frasier Valley Arts and a member of the public arts committee. I know most of you. I was just with you a couple uh weeks ago to give you an update on FBA. I can't be with you in person tonight. Um I'm actually um chasing powder um from Steamboat to Utah um and there's a large stretch there that we weren't quite sure if we'd have a a connection. So um forgive me for doing a recording instead. I'm here for a very simple reason. Um, we at Fasure Valley Arts uh would like to erect a uh sign uh alongside 40 um that advertises events. Uh they would be events that Frraasier Valley Arts is putting on. They would be events that would um hopefully be part of the DDA agenda and or the town's agenda with the support of both of those organizations. Um, the sign it would be a electronic one. And I'm going to give you a visual of that. You should see it now. Um, and what you'll see here is this sign has a um a very nice uh and again this is just a conceptual drawing. The the um actual design will be a little bit different than this. The top part is uh I intended to be static um and back lit um and it will show um Frasier Valley Arts and our website. It's designed to be replaced for when the center is built and it would in instead of saying Frasier Valley Arts, it would say the Frasier Center for the Arts or if we have naming rights, whatever the the name becomes. And then the portion below it um is intended to be um electronic and

changeable from a computer um and advertise our events. Um we intentionally want this to be relatively um uh simple. We don't want it to be uh seven or eight messages. We want it to be the next event and maybe one other message so that the 14,000 odd cars that go past that location every day can't help but know what's happening um in town. So what you see here is it's 5t wide uh 2 ft high, 2 feet um for the top part, this the the backlit part and 2 feet um high for the electronic part. We we have um spliced it into this photo. Um and yes, this would be a replacement for the Hilly Hooker sign. We do have the gracious permission of the um owner, new owner of the post office who is uh actually doing some really good work there to refresh that building. And she is willing to donate um this space for Frasier Valley Arts. Uh she actually designed the logo that you see there for us. So, we have lots of reasons to be thankful to her. Um, we we have talked with the Garrett and Sarah Katanzerite um about a few complications. You'll you'll note that the pole that is there um is in a little um grassy area. It turns out that that's a little too close to the road for the code. So, we may have to move that back a few feet. And honestly, this design left me um a little bit wanting. I I'd like the the base to be not only um more attractive but also sturdier. So, one of the things that we're asking our contractor to do is look at um a way of protecting the base uh when we relocate the curb a bit, but also making it more decorative. We

have some ideas to that. But long story short, um because this is a um uh facing uh the road and visible from both sides in 40, um I've been informed that we'll need the permission of the town board to erect it. Um as I did say earlier, we do have the permission from the land over uh land owner, excuse me, um to put it on her property. And you know, had um had we a center, we would probably uh put it nearer there. But we obviously realize that with all the work that's going to go on there with Clayton Court,

it's going to be a while before um the level of visibility is strong enough in that area. The last thing I'll mention here is um this uh sign would be um designed so that at a future time if it made sense in collaboration with the town to re relocate it to another location maybe in front of Safeway um to have even higher levels of visibility. Um it is possible to do that. It would come with some expense but it's not something that we're completely opposed to. Couple other things. Um the wire that you see there today um at uh for the Hilly Hooker sign that will be eliminated. We will put all the the electronics uh in the ground. Um and it'll be much more attractive than than what we've had there for 30 30 or 40 years now. Um the cost is between4 and $50,000 depending on some of these upgrades I mentioned. I'd like to spend a little bit more to make it more decorative. The Frasier Valley Arts is prepared to spend all of that, but we will be applying for a variety of grants to um offset the cost. Um we will not wait for those grants to be given before constructing it. Um we we would have every intention with the approval of the town board to um install this sign. We would be doing that this spring into early summer and then um make up the the cost into our coffers through through our grants. Um, other than that, I think that's really all that um, one needs to know about um, our project here. Um, we um, uh, would hope for your support. I do know that both Sarah and Garrett um, are well aware of this project and have quite a bit of information. So, if there are questions that unfortunately since I'm not there I can't answer, uh, they

may be able to. And I appreciate your time and hope for your support. Thank you very much. feel like I should thank him even though that was a video. I thought it was helpful. Um I I like the idea of having it match the the kind of the signs that are going to be coming to Frasier in the future. I don't know if you guys had a chance to look at the um number four in the um attachments there. Um but yeah, they're just they're good-looking signs that that the um kind of the government's governance committee has kind of uh established as what we'll use moving forward through the

through the whole valley, maybe into Tavern even if the if the county wants to to pay for it. I'm sorry. What's who's the govern the governance comm? So we have this committee. It's like me and Nick and our two town managers and um the um chamber kind of facilitates it. Sky is involved from the resort. Um so we're doing kind of all sorts of stuff. Um but signage is just

well the the wavefinding project that we've talked about through the budget season. Um that's been a big focus for us. The way finding project and getting that underway. We we wanted to have a a joint meeting about this with the town of Winter Park, but they went through a transition of managers. So that's delayed that that joint meeting. Um but uh we talk about just kind of just infrastructure and and and what that looks like and challenges that we have and just kind of collaborating on with both towns and with the resort on planning efforts that make sense.

Yeah, it started out we pulled together like every every entity within the the county basically um to say let's make an overall document that everyone can appreciate. So, it's been out there for two years, maybe. Um, rails have really formed it, right? Yeah. So, these all don't look like they're white backgrounds, which are the ones that in the schematic design, which I details on later. weekend. I just wanted to make sure that the board was

So, it's it's gonna be that's just kind of a not exactly um I mean these are pretty well what Oh, no. Yeah. What what what he showed different for sure. Yeah. Yeah. Because I mean these are different I liked. Yeah. So that's just well for off-remise signs that are not attached to a building like what do you do you want to have it matching what the conceptuals that we're looking at for the rest of the way finding and highway 40 and and Frasier River Trail directional way finding signage I think if it falls in line with the size you should be able to do whatever kind of sign you want

this is if it's in the code I don't think there should someone go you like the governance committee to say that you have to match everyone it's not a wayf finding people's personal property yeah I was asking I was asking if the town if the town board liked the idea of having a match. Oh, no. I don't. Yes. Why? Do we have to get C do approval for any of this? I think if it's on if it's out of the rightway, then we don't have to do anything. No. Or no signage. We We do have a sign code. We do. I think it just is a size, isn't it?

Um, I don't remember, but I Yeah, we spent a lot of time on it. So, we might want to So, I don't think it address. It goes by square foot of the business, I believe, and then how big it can go. Can you speak? Oh, I think it goes by the square footage of the business. It used to anyway. And then you can have your sign a percentage of how big the business is. Is the lineal feet of frontage of your business. Correct. This is what it was 20 years ago, I guess.

So, so just to clarify that lineal feet does apply for signs that are on um buildings.

In this case, the primary regulation is off- premise signs, regardless of sign type, are limited to a maximum sign area of 20 square feet. That's what's being proposed here. Um, as far as other aesthetic features, um, you know, the style of the pole structure itself, our sign code is pretty silent on that. Um, I think given that it's an off-remise sign and therefore subject to board approval, I do think it's appropriate for the board to provide their opinion on the general um, aesthetic look of the sign itself. Um, but there's no hard guidelines as far as I'm aware of in our code that speak to that.

I would add too that given that they are requesting a business enhancement grant, when we get to that grant application, if the board wanted to put any conditions on that grant funding in terms of it, you know, receiving final design approval or being in line with the wayfinding um, design, I think that is definitely something that the board could do. I mean, I'm assuming it has to be dark sky compliant. Is that is that addressed in the code?

So, as a um a illuminated sign, there are some regulations that um apply to it. Um and certainly to the electronic message, you know, changeable message portion of the sign. Um, our code as I'm looking at it does not specifically state dark sky compliance, but there are requirements on um the amount of luminance uh you know the foot candles essentially that the sign would output and require things like automatic dimmer software, solar sensors so that the brightness is lowered at night. So,

okay. I would really like to see it not be white. So, just something that might be a little more aesthetically appealing.

Sure. Well, again, just for general guidance to to staff, um, you know, the the wayfinding that is those conceptuals that are in the packet, those are, you know, very uniform for wayfinding purposes. Um I think the question that you know we can talk about now and if you guys want to uh require like a final kind of approval uh from the board on that final design um you know we can put that into the condition of maybe a funding um uh but with it being a privately owned sign um even though it's they'll bring it onto the their own property. Um, do you want to apply the designs for the wayfinding design to this sign or not? Or because it's a privately owned sign, do you would you like it to be have some flexibility?

I think it needs to be I don't think it and especially with Frasier Valley art, it makes really cool and and they don't have the base designed and that kind of stuff. Once you have the base designed, that changes the aesthetics of the sign itself and that kind of stuff. So, I think it's premature for some of those. You don't want it to stand out like a sore thumb either. I mean, it's like Peggy said, a big bright white sign is going to look out of place. Yeah, it needs to be. They need some graphic design help. I think we don't have to decide that now, but Well, we better find some graphic designer. Falls under. I think so. I think we should.

Okay. All right. Somebody make a recommendation or a motion. Um,

approves. What do you mean? Uh, so at this time just that motion to recommend that they move the sign out of the property is appropriate. It's anticipated that this would come back for final approval by the board once this applicant has a firm design for the signs location and aesthetic details and things like that. So, this will come back to the board either way. Okay, thank you. Second. I think that's all we need, right? It's just a motion or Yeah. motion to recommend. All right.

Um, ordinance 530 amending ordinance 526 relating to a 4.4 four $5.4 million bridge loan to the Frasier Housing Authority for St. Louis. Dalton is online. Yes. Yes. And uh Maddie, hey there. Good evening. Can you hear me? Okay, we can.

Awesome. Um well, as you guys know, Dalton Kelly with Butler Snow. We serve as bond counsel to the Frasier Housing Authority in connection with the bond issuance for the St. Louising project. And the first ordinance um that you have before you tonight that relates to this project is an ordinance amending ordinance number 526 which was adopted on September 3rd of last year. As you recall um last year when the board decided to issue the notice to proceed um with the project um the board also appropriated up to $5.4 4 million to loan to the Frasier Housing Authority in order to keep construction going while we worked on um getting the Chaffa commitment for the Prop 123 equity funds and worked um on getting the bonds prepared to go to market. Um as you probably recall, we can't take the bonds to market until the Prop 123 equity is in place. So all funds are in place. we finally received the Prop 123 equity commitment on December 23rd. And one of the conditions of that Prop 123 equity um commitment is that the town's loan on the cash flow basis um gets subordinated and basically paid at the same time that the equity distribution goes to Chaffa. What this doesn't prohibit and what this doesn't change as far as what's amended in the loan terms is you can pay off the $5.4 4 million bridge loan with bond proceeds. You can pay off the $5.4 million bridge loan with Mitech U proceeds for the middle income housing tax credits. And you can pay off that loan with any new market tax credits if those are awarded to the project. And so what it doesn't prevent is your ability to pay this loan off as we expected with the new markets tax credits. But if for um if the new market tax credits don't generate $5.4 $4 million and we don't

have enough bond proceeds left over in this was set up to then get paid with project revenue. The remainder, whatever's outstanding after we paid it off with the the middle income housing tax credits and remaining bond proceeds, that remainder would get paid on an annual basis once um debt service was paid and everything else was deposited on the bonds. And so, as you um may recall, the way the Prop 123 program works is you pay your bonds first and then we can make our various deposits under the indenture and then anything that gets to the bottom of that waterfall gets split with the town and um Chaffa 50/50. And that's that's where they want this loan to get paid rather than coming before that 50/50 split. And so the terms that are changing in this ordinance if you would approve it is the maturity date is getting kicked out till the maturity date of the chaff prop 123 equity. That was their requirement just so that ultimately if this remained outstanding any portion of it you would um you would have to get paid in that same time frame that they do. Um and the other amendment was to make it so that this um this interim loan is not um not ahead of the Prop 123 equity distribution. And so in a nutshell, that's what's going on is this doesn't change the plan to pay off the bridge loan with the proceeds of the middle income housing tax credits and any available bond proceeds. Um but what it does do is change how quickly um the portion if there is one that um gets paid back. it would change um just the status of when deposits are made. It's not going to come before the Prop 123 equity as as we had originally planned. Um the last piece I'll say before um taking questions on this is it it's at the end of the day, this is um what Chaffa came back in their commitment. Um there were discussions I know Matt and

Aaron talked to them about this and ultimately this was a sticking point for them as they were underwriting it. And so this is going to be a condition that's set forth in the um the commitment to be able to get the prop 123 equity. And so this is just something that's going to have to occur for you guys to get that prop 123 equity. Um so I just wanted to to emphasize that point is this is something that has been discussed with Chaffa. They're not willing to bend on it. And so the key from the finance side, what we've been working on is making sure we do what we can to make sure there's enough bond proceeds or and my tech proceeds to just take out this 54 so that it's paid back in 2027 as was originally planned. But we we do have to amend this and we do have that that possibility that if there's a portion that's not paid, it's going to have to be paid on that subordinate basis. 12.5

um 12.9.

You don't really have No, we're we're already building. This is Well, it makes sense when you're I mean, even if you're talking about the scale of the loan, whoever's giving you the $12.9 million loan, they want to make sure they're paid first before the $5.4 million loan is paid. So, I think it it makes very practical sense. So, um, I'd like to make a motion to approve ordinance. I know I'm online. I would like to make a motion to approve ordinance 530 amending ordinance 526 relating to a 5.4 bridge loan to the Frasier Housing Authority for St. Louis.

Second. Any

further discussion? All in favor? I. Any oppose? Okay. Thanks. And Dalton, we'll keep you here for ordinance 531 appropriating additional funds to the Frasier Housing Authority for St. Louis. Thank you very much. And and this this ordinance now relates to where we are currently. And so where we are currently, we did receive that commitment in December from Chaffa. We returned comments to that. And also during that period of time um the the working group has been been looking at the possibility of introducing some new market tax credits into the financing stack to provide some additional funds. One of the reasons for that is because when we got the commitment back from Chaffa that said we had to subordinate that loan, if we could get additional money into the deal, it increases the likelihood that we're taking out that entire 5.4 million. And so the introd uh introduction of that new markets component was something that Chapa didn't have when they did the original commitment and when they did the underwriting. And so the the team has been working on the bond side to make sure that the new markets can work on the bond side, but then also with Chaffa to explain to them the new market structure and and get them comfortable with it. And the most recent conversation on that was this afternoon at 4. Um, we had a productive call with their working group to try to answer any remaining questions they had. And basically there's there's a threshold question that they have to to answer for themselves and they're um going to take it to OEIT who um on Prop 123. Oedit's the one who technically gets the funds and then Chaffa administers it. But they want to make sure that the the proceeds from Prop Prop 123 can legally be used in the new market structure. And I think that's our primary hurdle. Past that I think it's more um their team just

getting uh an understanding of this. And the benefit of working with Chaffa on the new markets is they are also um another portion of Chaffa works with the new markets all the time. Um the benefit of the new markets is we would get additional revenue into the deal as I mentioned and that helps pay back that interim loan we were just talking about and um those proceeds would be used um to help build the early childhood learning center. So that's the the portion of the project that that would qualify. Um and I know that was a lot of information on new markets but that's to give the background on why we got a commitment in December and we're sitting here in February without the return commitment. That's been the work going on with Chaffa. And so where we sit today is after we get the commitment from Chaffa, which they indicated on the call they hope to have clarity from OEIT by the end of the week or by Tuesday next week, we would get the we would get the revised commitment um review it, make sure um everything was worked through that we believe needed to be um which it sounds like it is from our call today. Then Michael would sign that. after Michael signs it, we just start working towards closing on the Prop 123. And that also allows us to proceed towards closing with the bonds. And so really, that's the piece that we need to go on our bond timeline and be able to tell you exactly which day we're heading to closing. Um, and so we do think we're targeting right now uh a closing um you know, probably late March, early April. if we can get the commitment by early next week. Um if that slips a little bit then um then then we would be later than a uh later into April. And I think that's part of this conversation on the commitment with Chaffa. We just need clarity from them one way or the other on the new markets whether they're willing to do it or not so we can get moving forward. Um, but that's that's the background of this on why there's now a request for an additional up to $3.3 million is um for the project to

continue to be constructed through um the end of February and through March and if necessary into April. That's what's projected to be needed to get into April on the project. Um the plan and the hope is to issue bonds before that so you wouldn't have to draw the entire thing. Um but but this is giving comfort so that there doesn't have to be a stop work. If there is a stop work under the development agreement um there's just going to be costs incurred anytime you have to demobilize a project. It um it costs to stop a project, it costs to start a project and so there'll be costs associated with that and ultimately it goes down to the bottom line cost of the project if there has to be um demobilization and remobilization. And so that's that's the consequence of not having funds is there would be a stop work event and then when we got funds it might make the project um more expensive than what's projected right now. The difference between this appropriation um and the one that we just talked about the 5.4 is it is required to be paid back first with bond proceeds. So, the day that we close, you're going to take um up to 3.3 million, whatever was used out of the bond proceeds and wire it that'll be wired to the town that day. And so, this this is um not dependent on the new the new markets. It's not dependent on the uh middle income housing tax credits. It's not dependent on on really um either of those pieces at all. This is just dependent on the bonds closing and the Prop 123 closing because those have to go together. when those close um you would be paid back these funds. And so, as I mentioned, the target would be end of March is probably our best case scenario, but probably early April um to midappril would be when those funds are back. And so, what the ordinance um authorizes is an appropriation of 3 um 3.3 million. Correct. Um

correct.

Yeah, correct. um up to 3.3 million um basically as needed up to that amount and then requires that loan um to the housing authority to be paid back on the day of closing of the bonds. And so that's the distinction between this one and the last one. Um that's the amount that's being asked for and that's um the projected need um based off our timeline. Um and a little bit of background on on just what the hangup has been. It's it's really been trying to get Chaffa to finalize their commitment, which I I guess the last piece I'll offer on that is other than working through this new markets issue, I think we have the terms lined out and so we don't have a lot of concern that there's anything else that's a big roadblock right now. It's just them figuring out this can they use this program in connection with another program? And if so, then we can get the commitment and go. If they say it can't be, we'll get the commitment and go. Um, but I I I don't see um an additional hangup based off the prior comments that have been turned in the conversations we've had.

And thank you, Dalton. Um, Maddie, from the point of view of just looking at the town's finances and our ability to provide a secondary loan for 3.3 million, can you provide your end?

Yeah, sure. Um, good evening, Mattie Bdonovic with Hilltop Securities. Thanks for having us again. Um, uh, Michael and I have chatted a few times this week. Um, and he's sent over some projections that I believe came from, um, some of the reports that were presented at the beginning of the meeting today regarding cash balances of the town um, in a couple different funds, primarily obviously the general fund and then in the special revenue fund. um you know as as you'll recall when we have come to the summer retreats that you all have done and talked about you know overall financial management and policies and and fund balance has been a part of that um and as a result of those conversations I think the town has been kind of looking at a minimum threshold of that 70% of expenditures to be available at all times within those two funds. Um it obviously is not a formal policy but just a a practice um which we believe is a good it's a a good practice for the the town to engage in. Uh as uh Michael has put together some numbers in working with his staff um you know my understanding is that drawing down that additional 3.3 million puts you a little bit above the cusp of that um 70% reserve level. So you are still staying within sort of those minimum recommendations. Um, as Dalton mentioned, this is a little different than the $5.4 million loan um that is expected to be outstanding a bit longer. These funds will be replenished relatively quickly, presumably that we, you know, assuming that we can get the traffic commit commitment letter finalized and actually go to issue bonds. Sitting here today, aside from some major market event, we don't have any concerns about the ability to actually go and sell and close on the bonds and get those proceeds in hand. um interest rates have actually been trending down a bit um as we move through this first part of 2026. So we hope that that continues in your favor um because what that means is that there's more bond proceeds available if we can get uh if we can borrow funds at

a lower interest rate. So from our perspective um you know we based on town best practices and and overall financial management you know we don't have um or I guess we'll say we're comfortable with um the town wanting to move forward with a $3.3 million uh appropriation and as I believe Daltton highlighted you know the pause on construction. Um we know the costs will increase we just don't know how much. Um and this is a pretty delicate capital stack. Um, and so any increase in costs has the ability to potentially increase it to a point where we're then impacting the ability for that $5.4 million town loan to be uh repaid within the time frame that we've been talking about.

Is that a threat? No. So again, um that that title that commitment letter from Chaffa really just outlines the terms and conditions that are required for our underwriting team to finalize their primary underwriting document that they will use to sell the bonds. And uh once we get those, we'll be able to um what do you guys think about six weeks from the time of receiving that commitment letter to um trying to schedule a closing?

Okay. Yeah, I think that, you know, that's what we have laid out currently. Um, I know Dalton has and and his colleague Elizabeth Thomas has been drafting the disclosure document have been working on incorporating a lot of the legal terms that we anticipate being in the revised commitment letter based on the conversations that we've had with Chaffa to date. Uh, which should hopefully mean that once we have the revised commitment letter back, we can move relatively quickly. Um that that said obviously if that commitment letter comes back and there is something in there that we are not expecting that then require you know we're required to get back on the phone with Chaffa and work through any further deal points then that kind of six to seven week time frame obviously becomes a little bit more compromised but sitting here today assuming that we get back what we expect to get back from chaffle we don't have any concerns meeting um our anticipated timeline of closing uh I think Michael in your comments of April 14th I think there's a chance we can maybe slip to uh the end of the prior week. But if we say midappril in general, we don't have concerns at this point.

Questions?

Okay. Anyone want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 531 appropriating additional funds to the Frasier Housing Authority for St. Louis. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Post. Oh, you're opposed. Okay. All right. Motion passes. It's like a piggy bank. All righty. Um, need a motion to open the Frasier Housing Authority. Um, yes. Motion to suspend the board of trustees meeting and open the Frasier housing.

I make a motion to suspend the board of trustees meeting and open the Frasier housing authority. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Um, we are now in the Frasier Housing Authority. Um, we have a resolution 2026201 Fger housing authority resolution amending resolution 2025902 5.4 million bridge loan for St. Louis. Back to Daltton.

All right. Thank you very much. This is this is the companion resolution for the Frasier Housing Authority that goes with the um ordinance that the town um board of trustees just amended. um just to make those uh loan terms reflect um reflect the same loan terms in the ordinance. Um so the key differences are that maturity date goes out to the maturity date of the Prop 123 equity. We still fully intend on paying the 5.4 million with um proceeds of the bonds and the middle income housing tax credits. You'll also see in the med uh the amended version, we added the ability to pay back that loan with the new markets tax credits. that's also reflected in the bond documents. Um so that if those funds come in, they are available and can be used to pay back the $5.4 million loan. Um and so this is just the um the approval on the other side to um incorporate those same terms. Um I guess in the last piece it subordinates that loan to um um to the um distribution and so it gets paid at the same time um that that equity distribution goes to both Chaffa and the town. Um are there any questions for for us?

No. I'll make a motion to approve Frasier Housing Authority Resolution 2026201. Um Frasier Housing Authority Resolution amending resolution 202502. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor?

I opposed. Okay. Moving on to FHA resolution 2026202 authorizing second interim loan for St. Louis landing. And this one is the um companion to the ordinance that was just approved by the board of trustees appropriating $3.3 million up to $3.3 million as a loan to the Frasier Housing Authority. Um, this allows the Frasier Housing Authority to incur that loan, evidence it with a loan agreement and a note, and then pledges bond proceeds to pay that loan. And so, uh, upon bond closing, um, $3.3 million, if that is how much has been drawn, um, will come out of the bond proceeds and will, um, be, um, distributed to the town to repay the loan. Um and so really this the payment of this loan is just contingent on the bonds getting um getting closed. Um any additional questions on this one?

So this is in case it's it's in it's to keep the project moving along um spending money as needed until the bonds close. Is that right?

Yeah. So there's a financial repercussion either way. either you appropriate some funds right now to keep the project mobilized and going and under construction until the bonds close or you would have to do a stop work once that 5.4 million would was extinguished which I think will be if it wasn't last month will be later this month. um if if there is a stop work at a demobilization, there are costs incurred with that. And ultimately what that does is just add to the development cost for the project. And so if there's a demobilization and then we issue bonds, we would have to account for whatever that cost of demobilization is. Right now, that can't be quantified because we don't know how long it would be and everything that would be incurred. Um but it does add costs. And so this is basically funds to keep it going status quo until bonds are closed. Your other option would be um no additional um interim funds right now to um basically stop work until the bonds are closed. And then um we would just need to make sure when the bonds are issued that they're sized sufficiently to account for the costs incurred um in connection with the stop work.

So this is Lewis question about the bonds. Is there any possibility that the bonds will not be issued sitting here today? We don't expect that to be an issue. Um obviously if if there is a major market event that causes markets to shut down um like a COVID as an example um they may be delayed um just from a market access perspective. That said, we don't have any concerns about being able to issue the bonds themselves. It's just the time frame within which we're actually able to price and close the transaction. So the only thing that might change would be the rate. Correct.

I'd like to understand Katie why are why Katie why you voted in opposition to the first the first one. I'm sorry. The ordinance 52 531 that we just approved just I just kind of want to understand I think that they're just using the town as a piggy bank at this point. There was I'm sorry I can't

they were kind of using the town as a piggy bank. It felt like to me we weren't really expecting to have that and it was kind of wishy-washy a little bit, you know, and so it's just kind of like on a prayer hoping that we'll get that money back. It feels like I think it's a timing issue. I think that the weather's been really good. Construction's moved faster and I think also the impact of it takes a little longer when you're dealing with a government entity to get some of these because I think this is kind of a new project with the all this funding and capital stack is challenging. I'm I'm comfortable with it. I It's just a bridge loan to keep the construction moving along. Right.

Right. I think there was a probably another another way we could borrow it from someone else, right? But if the town has the money right now, why incur interest payments, you know? We Yeah, I mean, it is, but so is a loan. Um, we we had this debate about another piece of this project a while back. Um, and decided not to do a loan because we had the cash. So, um I'm happy to speak to the other options from a interim loan perspective if that's helpful. Sure.

Um so, you know, as we I I think we were up there maybe in October, September, October last year, um when that initial 5.4 $4 million loan was put in place and we did talk about other options, other financing options um that could be put in place rather than using town cash to fund the interim loan. Uh the reasons uh my recollection as to why uh the town decided to move towards the cash funding was um a couple of things. One from was a timing issue which is still applicable here. um the timing needed to put some of those interim financing pieces in place um is about as long particularly with where we are right now as actually executing the bond transaction itself. Um the other piece of that is there's additional interest costs that's being carried with that that will be due upon closing of bonds. So we would have some issues of actually generating enough proceeds at closing at this point to be able to pay repay that obligation which if we had gone down that path would create some issues with our capital stack currently. Um that was you know the decision that was obviously made last fall regarding the $5.4 million piece. the 3.3 million that we're discussing now, although not ideal um from a needing to provide additional funds from the town, is just that we did not know one, how much was going to be needed, um or two, the time frame within which we needed to cover some interim funding. um until candidly the last week or two um not that long ago about you know I would say three or four weeks ago there was still a chance that we could actually close on this financing in February um which was has been delayed now um a few times because of the uh what Dalton explained in regards to the uh negotiation of the commitment letter regarding the incorporation of the new market tax credit structure because of that we didn't know we needed to have

this interim funding source is we're still operating under a plan that we could potentially close by the end of February um until more recently and candidly there's not enough time to get a different financing source in place that is not overly costly which again creates challenges for the capital stack to be able to get that in place in time for the construction to continue. So, you know, from our perspective, the town can either contribute the $3.3 million um now and continue the project and and you know, we obviously will continue working on behalf of the town and the housing authority to try and put the financing in place in the timeline that we're talking about, understanding that not all of the factors to do so are under our control. Um but the alternative to that is that and and which is also understandable is if you're not comfortable funding the $3.3 million that just means that the project construction stops um and then we can deal with the ramifications and the impacts to the over capital overall capital stack um if if that's the choice that's made. So I you know I don't want um I don't want everyone to feel like Dalton and I are forcing you all to do anything here. This is this is truly an option. Um, and so it's worth discussing if there's some concerns or considerations that we need to talk through. There are there are two options, although neither of them are exactly ideal. Unfortunately, this is the the place that we are in just given some of the delays that we've ran into on the Chaffa side.

So, I had two questions and one of them Lewis asked already. What are the chances bonds don't sell? Um the other is what are the chances the uh we face this and I know it's a short timeline but what are the chances that uh we see the same situation as our original bridge loan uh we just had to subordinate that to another funding mechanism are is everything else tidied up is there something else that could make this come back to us in the next month or so that says now it's not getting paid back the day the bonds sell, it's subordinate to another funding source.

Um, I mean, the reason I why I supported it is it pretty much absolutely says when the bonds sell, we get paid. And so, I want to make sure that we aren't going to go through a change in subordination or or any of the things that we just did.

Yeah. And that's that's a great question because that's that's an absolutely valid concern and this was part of the conversation with Chaffa on the original one and that was kind of drilling down with Chaffa of why they were asking for the subordination on the original one. And the piece on that one was um the part they they don't have any issue with um that loan being paid back with bond proceeds. They don't have any issue with that loan being paid back with middle- inome housing tax credits. But when they underwrite the deal, when they start looking at the revenue that's coming off the project year after year, if the um loans going to be paid back, they're all subordinate to the bonds. Bonds get paid first. If um the Chaffa distribution came after the town loan, then their underwriting for what they thought the distribution was going to be was going to be off and they weren't going to realize what they thought they were going to realize. And so that was their hang-up on the original one. And the difference with that one is this loan or another one is that one we're was always planned to be paid back with the middle income housing tax credits which is necessarily subject to how much we can get out of the middle income housing tax credits when that's sold. And so though it's it was sized to be the 5.4 which we think will be realized out of the middle income housing tax credits, we don't know until that deal is done and that is priced and and closed. And so there that's why on the other loan there was always this ability to pay it back with project revenues if necessary. And that was always a function of just being able to make sure if for some reason the tax credits were insufficient that you guys had um a legal obligation to essentially um pay yourselves back um for that. Where this one is different is it is absolutely as you said um to be paid back with bond proceeds on the day that it's closed. And so there is not um this mechanism of we're getting paid back with another source that might be insufficient. There's not this um concept of you're going to be paid back

with um project revenues. What this is is truly what we we call a bond anticipation. No, it is something that is an obligation that's issued before bonds are issued to be paid back with bond proceeds um when it is issued. And so that's where it's different and given um how Trafa felt about the $5.4 $4 million loan. The fact that they were fine with it being paid with bond proceeds, they were fine with it being paid with the middle-income housing tax credits because that doesn't affect their underwriting. This one's also um of that same variety. The only difference is we don't have this uh potential issue of of not having enough and needing project revenues to to pay the difference. And so, um that's the that's one of the differences between the two loans. And and that's why the requirement is that this has to be paid back right away. And frankly uh it would be a non-starter to have a conversation with Chaffa to subordinate this. And this has been something that we when we were talking to him you know earlier today it has been commun uh communicated to him that you know we need funds and there's going to be additional interim funds and this is what we're doing. And so um we feel pretty good about where we are there. And I know um um Erin and and Matt have had additional conversations with Chaffa than than we have. We've we haven't had as many conversations with them, but at least in our conversations, um that that seemed to be the the issue with the other loan was never that you're going to pay it back with proceeds if they were available. It was always about this revenue stream on the ongoing basis if that was necessary.

Just one, this is Lewis, just to follow up on Adam's question. So this is kind of a bridge loan to to get us through to the point where we get the bonds issued and we get the money right. What if it takes longer than you expect? So you're you're estimating that this 3.3 actually the promisary note says 2 billion but whatever it is 3.3 how long is that are you factoring that um to uh to last? Is it going to take us through April or May or what have we I can probably speak to that

and we're we're running out of money, right? Correct. Y yeah, I believe that this is supposed to take us if we are able to close midappril, I think this is sufficient. I think if we get to the payment and the next sort of invoicing date in April, I think there and we haven't closed on the bonds, I think there would actually be additional funds needed at that point, but Matt might be able to speak to that better than I can since he's done those forecasts.

Yeah. So, uh just a conversation with Matt, this is supposed to get us through April for for cost and um and and then hopefully through the middle of May if needed to. Um, and you know, my recommendation for this is there's a lot of issues with if you pause construction that are related to various grants and timelines that we have and just general costs. Um, construction's hard. Um, it's definitely not a smooth process. Uh, but it's going very smoothly on site over there. Um, but we're looking at, you know, this delay because of, uh, trying to bring in more capital into the project, which I think is an overall significant benefit. Um, but this is really to bring us hopefully all the way through uh April and and some into May if needed. Um, and if a further appropriation is is needed, I I I'm not sure I would recommend that. Um, I think at that point we would probably look at pausing construction if we needed to and and waiting until we closing the bond so there's no more outstanding notes from the town to support the project from our cash reserves.

So, is it 2 million or 3.3 million? It's 3.3. Um where's the 2 million on this? I just saw that.

Just a note on the promisary note that we just I was I'm going to point out here. Um it says the principal amount is not to exceed 3.3 million, but then it does say 2 million in in the the body there, right? So just just for clarification, this is for 3.3 million. So we'll we'll make that change obviously. Well, could we, you know, just in case, go ahead and initiate the other process they were talking about getting loan getting a loan, you know, getting that rolling just in case we need to access additional capital because I don't, you know, we don't want the project to stop and we don't want to incur the cost of having to stop and then restart it, right? That's going to add like a pre-approval essentially. Yeah, preval

we decide to access funds outside of the towels funds. Is that a consensus with the board's pursuit that I think we should look into that part of it too like I just didn't want it to become a habit like we're not going to we're not a bank. Yeah. This isn't my money. It's like a teenager. Huh. Well, and at this at this at this point, Lewis, at this point in time for us to line up some type of a, you know, a short-term loan to be able to get through if we do have further delays in closing like this gives us some time to actually do that and get maybe something lined up so that we have some type of pre-approval. Um, so if the board you have consensus about that, we can pursue that as well. That'd be great. I think so.

Okay. Matt did have his hand up. Hey. Hi, Matt. Good evening, board of trustees. Matt Ginsburg, Mountain Affordable Housing Development. How are you all? We miss you.

Yeah, I I am I do owe you a visit. It would be convenient if it also snowed. Um, which I guess it's doing. We I think two months is is probably just enough time to spin something up. Um the last time we talked to one of the the most likely providers, they were going through a a a um staffing change and they were a little short-handed. Um and that was like uh late last year. Um we'll I will spin them up tomorrow morning and see if what their availability is. I think there's a modest cost to get them going like a few thousand, but as a insurance policy quote unquote um it sounds like a reasonable idea. Okay. All right, good. Um, I'd like to make a resolution uh approving at the FHA resolution 2026-0202 authorizing the second interim loan for St. Lois Landing along with um staff to proceed looking at optional financing in the event we need a temporary loan at the end of this interim loan.

I'll second loan number one. Yeah, that's the motion that's on the table. So second uh further discussion all in favor I I opposed again because I I I don't I I don't like the first half I like the second. Okay. Sounds good. Well yeah I like that on. Gotcha. Okay. I would like to make a motion to close the Frasier Housing Authority and reopen the town board meeting. I'll second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Yes. So, we're back. Um, we're going to do discussion, possible action. Um, but before we jump in, oh, wait, no, we're going to go into resolution 2026 0202 business enhancement grant awards. Good evening, Mayor Sbenick, board of trustees. Sarah Katanite, assistant town manager. The matter before you tonight is consideration of the Frasier Business Enhancement Grant applications for funding. Um, as you know, the Frasier Business Enhancement Grant Program is intended to support current businesses and improve the economic vitality of Frraasier by encouraging enhancements to the physical appearance of business properties, improvements of public infrastructure, amenities, and gathering places, and increased ADA accessibility. Um, this program is part of a wider kind of economic development approach that really recognizes the importance of our local businesses to the town of Frraasier. um recognizing that a good portion of our town general fund does come from sales tax revenue um and just the the place kind of in the heart of Frasier that the business community helps to provide. So looking to try to create a place where people want to go um with the idea that will lead to increased tourism and visitor spending, boosting property values and sales tax revenues and business retention and growth as well as contributing to just community and quality of life here in Frraasier. Um so general kind of beautifification of our downtown and commercial corridor and enhancing the curb appeal, town identity and civic pride, creating

pedestrian friendly environment and enhanced public spaces. and then just feeding into some of our long-term town initiatives um and partnership with the business community in turn leading to greater economic resiliency and sustainability for the town of Frasier. Um we had a workshop um and some different agenda items last fall to again revisit the business enhancement grant program. Um our eligible projects and most of the criteria largely stayed the same. We did kind of focus in on applicant eligibility and better defining that. Um, so we are working with applicants must own or lease the commercial property slated for improvements. The properties must be within Frasier's Riverwalk or business district or in another commercial mixeduse plan development. Um, home occupations and standalone residences are not eligible. Applicants must be in good standing with the town. Um, so we do check that they all have current business licenses, things like that. Um tenants must have written consent from property owners. Um and then a single application may be submitted for multiple spaces or properties for a particular scope of work. The maximum award um that an applicant can receive is $25,000. That is per business space. So again, if there's multiple businesses as part of one project, that award amount can be increased um relevant to the number of businesses. We do require a match. Generally, that's a minimum of 50% of the project cost. Um, so if they were to get a $10,000 award, they'd have to be paying at least $10,000 themselves. Um, we did promote these uh business enhancement grant awards this year through the town website and social media, through the downtown development authority, the chamber of commerce, and KFFR. We moved up the priority deadline this

year. Um, last year it was March 1st. This year it was February 1st to try to give applicants if they were awarded more time to make sure their projects were kind of lined up and hopefully could be executed this summer as intended. Um, and we did receive seven applications by that February 1st deadline. We had a grant review committee once again. So that was made up of Garrett Scott and myself um as town staff. We also had Diane Butler from Grand County Economic Development and Abby Samuelson and Bill Palmer who are both GDA members as well as local business owners. Um we reviewed the applications. They were reviewed to make sure that the applicant and the project were eligible. Um so again based on the grant criteria and making sure they were in good standing with the town. We evaluated project readiness, um whether or not applicants had formal estimates and plans, contractors lined up, things like that. Um any permits that are needed. A lot of those permits we don't necessarily require at time of application, but they must receive those permits and approvals before they begin their work in order to later be able to receive the reimbursement. um if they've received funding previously through the business enhancement grant program or other town economic incentives, making sure they were in compliance previously. Um the community benefit of the project. And then we also awarded a bonus if they were located kind of right on Highway 40 and would have that high visibility for the town and for traffic coming through. Um, so the one business that is not listed here in terms of being recommended for approval was Blacktie Ski Rentals. Um, they were requesting money for a mural. Last year when they redid their sighting, they kind of left one wall available for a mural. Um, but

the public arts committee is looking to provide them the commission from Mural Fest for the mural this year. Um so for that reason we are not recommending them for funding as the public arts committee will provide the funding in the budget for that mural. Um the other applicants were all deemed to be eligible. Um so we did recommend them for funding. Um the Colorado Corn Dog and Burger Company did receive an award last year. Um it was a relatively small award. At the end they got $3,13 to redo their wrap. They were rebranding from Colorado Corn Dog to Colorado Corn Dog and Burger Company. This year they are looking to put in a window unit and serving tray. They say that the serving tray is failing and causing a safety hazard. So looking to replace that. Um so that award amount would be 50% of the cost at $2,265. Fasier Frraasier Fuel LLC is looking to redo their pavers. they've become uneven and they say that is a safety hazard that seems to be due to some drainage issues that they are looking to address. They would like to improve the lighting with LED energy efficient lighting and lighting that is dark sky compliant and then also um an electronic sign for the it says gas station. I should have written car wash there. Um so that would be hung on the car wash. Um they have provided estimates that provide a range of costs. They don't have concrete estimates for all of those different items with the exception of the sign. Um, but $25,000 as an award kind of fell right on the lower end of their range. Frasier Valley Arts, um, we discussed their sign earlier. They are looking for funding. Their request asked for a starting point of $18,425

um, going up to the cap of $25,000. So, it would be 50% of the cost. Um, the committee did recommend reserving that 25,000. Again, they'd only actually get reimbursed half of what they spend. Um, but setting that money aside, Frasier Quicks Stop requested money to repaint the sighting and the roof. So, that is the gas station building right there at the Shell. Um, half of their project cost would be an award amount of $15,85. Winter Park Fly Fisher is looking to replace their electronic sign, which I never previously noticed, but now duly note every time I drive by that it is broken. Um, so they would like to update that. I did speak to them about making sure the sign was dark sky compliant and they're looking to work with Lunford Signs and there is the ability to do that. And then the Xerx40 LLC is the post office building. They are looking to completely renovate the facade of the building. Um, I think this is a project that everybody agrees is long overdue. They did request $75,000 based on having the post office, Winter Park, and Frasier Tire and Auto as well as the Verizon Tower in that building complex. Um the committee recommended providing 50,000 based on the post office and the Winter Park Frasier Tire and Auto being two businesses that were kind of physically locating that space. Um so that does lead to a total award amount of $124,850. This does mean that if all these awards are approved and utilized, um, we would not be coming back multiple times with additional business enhancement grant request because that money would be spent.

Sure. At this one time with the priority deadline, right? Um, with the exception of Colorado Cornog and Burger Company, these all are new applicants to the Frasier Business Enhancement Grants. So, I'm happy to answer any questions. I think we have at least a couple of the applicants here as well. If you have any questions for them, I have a question. Um, so last year we had at least one business that I'm aware of that did not spend their money. Yep.

So does that just they get to spend it this year or how does how did that work? So businesses are required to spend the money this year unless they formally request and are granted an extension. Um we did actually have a number of projects that requested an extension last year that have through this year um to complete their work and I believe we've provided October as a deadline to complete the work and submit all the paperwork for reimbursement. Um the holiday in last year ended up foregoing their award. They did not move forward. Um Grandid Learning Center completed part of it but weren't able to line up a partner so they are rolling their project into this year. Frasier Valley Distilling rolled into this year. Mooseen Merchant as well since there were delays with them being able to occupy well to purchase the building and move into that space. Um Frasier River Beer Co. And then the Cutkkey building um that's across from the Shell there on Eisenhower moved theirs over to this year as well. And then Frasier Valley Center, we required a site plan and they kind of got um delayed with working with their architect or to architect to get all that together. And so they are hoping to complete that project this spring

roughly. Is that 50% of our grants last year or is that it was a good number. I mean Do you do you think moving it up by a month is going to help or We'll see. Hopefully. Yeah,

that's the intention and again we tried to judge project readiness. Um we know how difficult it can be to get work done in in the county. Um some of those applicants that I mean we did a couple things to address this like Moose and Merchant would have been eligible this year um given that they didn't yet own or have a lease on that building. Um, again that was a delay outside of their control, but this time around we'd tell them, you know, nicely to come back. Um, so we we we are hoping that moving it up a month helps. Um, we're evaluating the need for permits and things like this. A lot of the applicants that didn't complete their projects last year were also applicants that came in later in the year. Um, so we're hoping that that these folks have their ducks in a row and we'll commit to providing them.

So we're not we're not enforcing that peril. Yeah. Can we change it? We can, but again, what was the requirement was they had to formally request an extension and be granted and we did they did follow that process. They were told they could have it once. Yeah. What about what if we decide about approving businesses for subsequent years? So if they get a grant one year, are they eligible in subsequent years? I mean, is it is it indefinite how many they can request?

Currently, they are eligible to reapply. That was a criteria we looked at. So if we didn't have enough money to go around, they would be at a disadvantage to new applicants. Um, and when we scored them, we also we looked at if they had applied previously and then if they had, if they were compliant and had, you know, turned in everything they were supposed to, completed their project in a timely fashion. I think if the board wants to revisit the criteria again as we did last year, um, that's something that we could look at. Yeah, I think we're as good with that. Yeah, they should.

Yeah, they don't get a priority there. Other people are priority overall. I mean, my recommendation would be that we look at an cap on dollar amount versus number of times that they apply. Again, Colorado Corn Dog Company, their dollar amount was relatively small compared to some of the other projects. And so, if their second grant this year, their dollar amount is still um going to be one of our lowest would be one of our lowest grantee awards. there requirement that there be visibility from from 40 or you know some visibility requirement because that tuck behind bonus it's not visible right from the road help

the requirements that they're in a commercial that it's a commercial property in the downtown or commercial district we did again in assigning points um they got bonus points or more points for being highly visible and on So the which one was it? Um there's materials for metal roofing, plastic film, blah blah blah paint roof on the main building. Um I guess I'm just like I'm looking at that and I'm thinking what if Murdoch Center says, "Oh, we need help with our roof." Like it's a flat roof. Nobody could see anything, but they still

We need to paint a big alien balloon on there. Well, I mean, yeah. Well, that's Well, that that be that's more of a ceiling. So, that's what I'm saying. Is everything visible from the from the road? Is the visibility the the key factor that's the leak? No, would be visible. We

Sarah, what do the program requirements say about nonvisible improvements for the business enhancement grant? Um, we do not specifically reference nonvisible improvements. Um, eligible projects, ADA improvements, publicly displayed art, landscaping and streetscape improvements, exterior decorations, building facade improvements, renovations, painting, signage, awnings, cornises, sidewalks, exterior lighting, gathering spaces, public amenities, patios, or other related exterior improvements. Um again, the evaluation criteria states that improvements that provide the most public benefit will be prioritized. Um so the board could opt to not prioritize improvements that you know are not maximally seen.

Yeah. I mean I thought it was a beautifification project, right? Painting. Yeah, I'm not. Can I make a motion? I'd like to make a motion approving resolution 202602, business enhancement grants awards, as posted here on our agenda. Is anyone ready to make a second further discussion? Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Um I hate to do this, but I I would recommend that we revisit the criteria again because it seems you're in your words wishy-washy. We're we're it's you know there's a lot of gray here. We're not I don't know. It doesn't seem like the criteria are really really firm. I think we all need to be on the same page. Well, yeah. I I think that's a continuous process that we're in. I mean, every year hopefully we're taking suggestions and maybe holding it.

I mean, I I really do appreciate that they recognize the Verizon Tower, not as a operating business. It doesn't have staff. It doesn't generate revenue. It doesn't, you know, it is an amenity lease. Um, so I I appreciate that you guys recognize that and that's kind of what I was talking about with the signs. I figured it's a tenant of mine and therefore

Deb, would you like to come up to the money? And maybe I got my language wrong, but but I think she understood what what we're I mean, should we be paying Verizon for something that I I don't know.

There is a structure that is around it. So that has to be able to my choice at this point is not that side of the building which based on what you're saying is you know it doesn't have to be it's not visible from although it is visible from St. Louis but that's kind of the option I'm going to have is trying to decide what do I do now instead of the rock, the metal, and the sighting that um is generating right now $200,000. Um leaving that leaving that as it is and just doing three sizes.

Yeah, I'm supportive of the project. I I I I'm just I I think we were working out some technicalities in our grant process, not necessarily your project specifically. So, um I I I apologize if you misunderstood some of my questions as a a negative on your project. The other thing that happens with that rising tower is that it is the going in and increasing the maintenance and they've been trying to do this maintenance on that tower for about two years right now. That's why you're so you're working and of this

and the reason why is Hillison never talked to them never they want wouldn't give them that work permit go up there. So right now we're in the process of working with Verizon which is now a vertical bridge part of Verizon to go in there and they're going to upgrade that tower for basically the the val. So what we were trying to do was get this all put together at the same time so could be removed. They could go do their changes. We could do the site. That's kind

I have a question about the roof and the quick stop. I believe that's a metal roof. Is that correct? Looks like it. Yeah. 3D style. I mean, I've never seen anybody be successful in painting a metal roof. It usually ends up having to be replaced. And I think the KICO at in Winter Park was exhibit A of how it just doesn't really work. It's pretty tough, but you have to you're doing it outside. You paint a car inside in a booth with

I've never seen it. There's a motion on the floor. Motion on the second few seconds maybe. Yeah, we're still further discussion. So, anything else? Okay. Uh, all those in favor? I I Any opposed? Okay.

All right. Thanks. I'd like to move to hold an emergency executive session pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute 24-6-424 for a conference with the town attorney for the purpose of discussing legal sufficiency of the comprehensive plan and for the relevance and application of ongoing legal questions to the Grand Park West M West Mountain filing one final plat and FPDP. Oh, to include Michael Brock, Garrett Scott, and Kent Whitmer.

Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. So, can we just go into the boardroom? The room here. Yeah. If we go just just go into the boardroom for a session and then maybe you could put on some music. Awesome. Sure. Okay.

We are ready to get back into the board meeting. Um we are at resolution 2026 0203 approving Grand Park West Mountain filing one. Um final platin FPDP Garrett All right. Thank you, mayor and trustees. Garrett Scott, town planner. Uh, the item before you is an FPDP and final plat for the West Mountain filing one development in Grand Park. Uh, applicant information up on the screen as well as property location. Proposed land uses include 79 single family residences. The existing zoning is PD for plan development. And again, this request is the approval of a final platin FPDP um with those 79 residential lots. Uh and it includes revisions to the previously approved street and lot layout. So, uh when this application went to the planning commission last month on January 28th, that was a properly noticed public hearing. uh notice was published in the Skyhigh newspaper uh two weeks in advance on the January 14th and the applicant sent out mailed notices to adjacent property owners um on or before January 14th in compliance with code and affidavit of that mailing slashmailing receipts are provided in the packet for reference. Speaking to the overall review and approval timeline, um, back backing up all the way to 2005 is when the plan development district plan for Grand Park was approved. March of 2023 is when the preliminary plat and FPDP were approved by the planning commission. Um, this application has received approval by the board twice before. First in June of

2024 for the final plat. We received the applicant received approval again in January of last year um to accommodate a revision in the number of lots and their layout and this approval before you this evening is the second revision to this FPDP and final plat. So looking at the development location um it is the dark gray area kind of in the center of your screen. property is located generally west of the Union Pacific Railroad along a planned extension of Grand Park Drive. Uh just as a note, this map includes um property and rideway lines uh with mostly existing areas depicted to the north and east of the railroad and future proposed but not yet approved areas depicted in the remainder of West Mountain just for reference. But again, uh tonight's approval just focuses on the area depicted here. Just further context on the location of the property. Um showing you know proximity to Highway 40 in the village of Grand Park area, Old Victory Road, Grand Park Drive, and the Union Pacific Railroad. Uh this is the Leland Creek subdivision of Winter Park as well as Leland Creek itself kind of on the border of the property. So speaking to what changed from the approval from January of a year ago um that previous version is here on the left whereas the current proposed revision is shown here on the right. So in general the uh shape of an area of the subdivision is overall consistent but the main change is the addition of this roundabout intersection and relocation of this uh collector roadway

further west along Grand Park Drive. This collector roadway is proposed to serve future development areas. Um and this change to a roundabout intersection was also uh necessary to facilitate you know anticipated traffic volumes and traffic demands that are expected with future development that this road would serve. Um but overall the land uses themselves are consistent between the two um proposals um you know with a mix of single family attached and detached units uh on on these lots. So, in terms of um the process to modify an approved FPDP, uh this section of our code 192160 states that an approved FPDP may be modified through a minor or major amendment. Uh minor FPDP amendments are administratively approved by staff. However, these only apply to a fairly limited set of circumstances. Major FPDP amendments uh on the other hand do require a public hearing before the planning commission and approval by the board of trustees. And the reason why this is being triggered is specifically this requirement here which is a rearrangement of lots, blocks and building tracks. And again, this was just precipitated by the change to the roadway and intersection layout. This slide shows the overall land use plan for West Mountain filing one um and the various planning areas that comprise the proposed development. Um in contrast to the previous approval from a year ago, this FPDP removes planning area 10W.2. It is now consolidated into 10W.1. Um, additionally, this FPDP would

formalize uh this area of 23W encompassing open space areas as well as the right of way of major roads uh Grand Park Drive and Outpost Club Drive as is consistent with the Grand Park PDD to include these major roadways as 23W um acreage. And again, this is just highlighting the total number of units in 10W.1 and 11W total to 79, which matches the previous approval. Um in terms of planning area acreage um excluding 23W uh the area of 10W.1 and 11W uh has increased slightly from the previous um approval from a year ago by approximately 3 and 1/2 acres. However, um this is fairly close and in line with the original approval and staff has no major concerns at this time and we'll continue to track both um density um you know approved units as well as approved acreage throughout West Mountain as FPDPS are approved to ensure consistency with the Grand Park PDD. So this slide depicts the 2005 Grand Park PDDD on the left as well as the filing one area that is under consideration tonight as well as a future proposal um West Mountain filing two which is under review at this time um and you know going through the review and approval process. So, as was mentioned, this filing 2 proposal is really what um precipitated the change to filing one and triggering the need to revise the roadway layout and the intersection. Um the updated plans uh you know just take into account future development plans,

but they're still consistent with the Grand Park PDDD. So, staff has no issues uh with the filing one proposal. And this filing 2 application will come to the planning commission um next week for initial review and approval of their preliminary plat and will continue to be reviewed in accordance to uh the town's processes. So next I wanted to speak to um a couple conditions of approval. Um one of them being the requirement that the water master plan for the West Mountain area be completed. I first just want to note that this was a condition of approval from the previous two approvals of this FPDP and final plat and staff is simply recommending that it be carried forward as a condition of approval yet again for this iteration. Um just to be consistent with those prior approvals. Um in terms of the status of this master plan, it's been um under review throughout last year and even you know to today. um and it has progressed but at this point it is still not approved. So we simply want to maintain that condition of approval. Additionally, what's shown here on the right comes from the traffic study that was um required as part of the West Mountain filing 2 review. Um and it's provided in the packet just for reference. Uh this traffic impact study is also still under review by staff and not approved at this time. Um, and staff just wants to be clear that approval of the filing one FPDP and final plat application tonight does not constitute approval of this traffic study by the board. Um, again, it's still under review by town staff. It's simply provided in the packet for reference as this was um the thing that you know triggered the roundabout and the change to the roadway configuration.

So ultimately staff is recommending approval with conditions. Um staff recommends that the board approve resolution 2026203 with the conditions as noted. Generally speaking these are the same conditions of approval from January of last year and just carrying them over to the current approval. Um and they include addressing all pending referral comments. uh receiving approval of the water master plan and additional standard items such as executing a development improvements agreement, finalizing addresses, etc. So, I'll just stop my presentation here if there are any questions and then let the applicant uh present. Yeah, I forget which one of the documents, but it seemed to lead me to believe that there's some a difference in the understanding of what approval of the water master plan is. sub just submitting one versus MER or what what does approval of a water master plan mean or what does how does it get qualified as approved?

Yeah. Um I would say that the water master plan is comprised of various elements. Um and to this date, you know, some of those elements have been submitted um separately from one another and reviewed separately. So, for example, um backing up to this slide, what this is depicting on the left here is the kind of overall layout of um water manes, um pump houses, and water storage tanks throughout West Mountain. And this is something that has had a lot of time, effort, review um put into it um to to reach this point. Um other elements of the plan include um you know identifying water source facilities, the actual raw water wells to you know supply groundwater and treat it to serve these uses. uh that has been you know less of a area of focus thus far in submitts. The town has received some informal I would uh describe them submitts of this information. Uh but I would say really the water master plan document should encompass these various plan elements together and at this time we don't have that cohesive.

Well yeah I I think of a master plan as a cohesive central document not as a collection of of submitts on whatever the subject of the day is. Um so okay sure. Yeah.

Other questions before we have the applicant state. I have a helper. Apologize. He's just sitting in the car for a long time.

Leila Rosales, Terosino Design. Um I actually I have a presentation. I don't know that I need to share it with you tonight. Um, I think you're aware of of what we're doing and and why we're doing it and Garrett did a good job. Um, we don't have any issues with the conditions at this point in time. Um, we did submit the um, water construction plans for the master water report which we got comments back on last week. We plan to resubmit those yet this week along with the report. So, we'll be able to get everything back into staff on that piece u yet this week. So, we are working on it. We're, you know, it's just taking time. Things are big. Um, so, um, I, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them, but I Let's keep this short and sweet because it's

so I was concerned about on the roundabout, I understand for it. It looked like this if there were another intersection going toward Cleveland. But on that last photo that they saw there, it looked like it was just a three-way access. It will be golfer because there will be access coming down. Um and and but that's your property. Mhm. Yeah. Well, and it's a it's a piece of property actually that um Cobalt still has some has ownership of. There's a 30 acre parcel right down in there. Um but yes, so there will be the roundabout will be four legs but it does not impact the wetlands believe.

Yeah. Yes. Yeah. But that's a conversation for another time. Yep. Yep. How far could Could could you just show like on a map how far up the wetlands? And I don't know if you could do like a 3D. Hey Katie, can you turn your mic there? One of the documents did show the wetlands um kind of little bit of a delineator and it's um Thank you. the roundabout isn't on it, but that the north road would head right into them. And then there's a wildlife corridor, but that's another filing by someone else.

There we go. Let's see. Yep. Okay. Is that pretty or sort of can zoom in on it? Let's see. Oh, it doesn't show wetlands on it.

Yeah, pretty much. Just hold. Let's see if I got a map that will work. Well, this starts to show it a lot. Give it one second. It never catches up. reflected on this instant technology.

That's buddy. Um, okay. So, uh, the roundabout that you're looking at here, you can do one here. So roundabout here. Leland Creek is actually here. Kind of see Leland Creek that kind of goes. Okay. So So it will kind of go in and out around there. So So So Leland Creek, Leland Creek is the red line. No. Yeah. Yeah. Leeland Creek is the red line that's on the left. And then you've got to see the line coming off about. Yeah. So it's far it's further away than than you would think it is. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Topic for another day. Mhm. That is true. Okay. So, anybody have any more questions? No, that was the big one.

Make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve resolution 20 26203 approving a final flat and final plan development plan for residential development known as Grand Park West Mountain filing number one planning areas 10W and 11W. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I posted. Okay. Thanks. Thanks.

You're welcome. Okay, last on the list before updates, ordinance 532, adoption of the Frasier forward comprehensive plan, Garrett. Thank you, mayor and trustees, Garrett Scotttown Planner. So, following up from our workshop two weeks ago reviewing and discussing the comprehensive plan with you all, um staff has now pre uh prepared an ordinance that if approved would formally adopt our comprehensive plan and reach the conclusion of our long awaited uh update to our comprehensive plan. um based on the conditions of approval provided by the planning commission uh in January. I just wanted to speak to those two items. One of them was a review by our town attorney to confirm that the comprehensive plan meets all applicable state statutes. After a review of the plan and by our town attorney, uh town staff and our attorney are highly confident that it does meet all applicable state statutes that um are required for comprehensive plans. Um the second item that was a condition of approval or part of the planning commission's recommendation was to review or revise the future land use maps um as shown here. So, what's currently on the screen is from the version of the plan from January 23rd. This is the version of the plan that was presented to you all um on February 4th in our workshop. Just as a reminder, these show um areas that are zoned plan development both in Grand Park and Rendevous that do not have a final plan development plan or FPDP um approved with this hatched um diagonal overlay.

Um underneath what is being shown is the um land use and zoning framework for the rendevous and grand park pds as documented in the approved land development district plans for these developments. So that is what these maps were meant to depict. uh we received public comment that um expressed uh opposition or um I guess resistance to this being depicted. So staff provided another option which is to simply show these areas within PD zones that do not have an approved FPDP um with a hatched overlay as well as the color gray. So that it's not signifying any specific land use as noted in the table uh residential, commercial or mixed use. Uh it is simply noted as plan development and the text in the comprehensive plan simply notes that these areas will be evaluated in conjunction with review of the annexation agreements, plan development district plans and other applicable policies that govern land use in these areas. Um so ultimately staff believes that the um purpose or intention or interpretation of these two maps is effectively the same. Um but the uniform gray color um as is proposed on these figures um just helps visually show I guess more ambiguity or flexibility on the part of future land use in these areas as opposed to relying on the underlying um approved PDDs which again will still be used to evaluate FPDPS um as they are now and into the future.

here. So, um, so at this time, just simply seeking direction from the board on which version of the future land use maps they would like included in the plan, and staff can simply make that change as part of the adoption motion if um, the board chooses. I mean, I'm okay with the grade out version, but shouldn't we add that filing one we just approved? We can we add that to the

Yes. So staff, you know, anticipates um updating these future land use maps at least annually, if not more frequently. Um certainly as FPDPS are approved, as reszoning applications are approved, um say from a residential to a mixeduse uh type of zone, that could result in a change to the future land use map. So um these maps are certainly amendable and they are not static over time and staff anticipates changing them. Um certainly to your point as FPDPS are approved and those PD areas are are more um finalized. Okay.

I am concerned if you do the grade out version that you lose a lot of history that has gone on and it was agreed to in the 2003 annexation agreement the 2005 FPD. And I think it's really important that boards moving forward have this history and that I understand there will be changes, but I think that's a baseline and any any changes should be an improvement of what was previously approved but not ignoring what was previously approved. And I think it's really important that some of us may not be here in 10 years. Uh probably not me anyway, at least at this table. Um I think it's important that the history of what has gone on is depicted. And I a lot of people are visual people and some people like to read paragraphs and dig deep into the files, but a lot of people would like to look at it and say, "Oh, I get what the town was thinking when this was annexed." So, I would like to move forward with the colored with everything else so that it matches and it all looks like we were worked on this and it just didn't plop in here this point.

So, Peggy, do you like the colored with the hatch overlay? Is that what you're talking about? That's just But that gives you a depiction of what was the original plan. Now, that doesn't mean it can't change. Well, as FPB, can you pull that slide back up, please? Thank you. And as FPDPS are approved or is that still the intent that we're hearing is that we can kind of update certain parts of the map as they are still updated. I think that's fine. But I think well essentially everything that doesn't have an FPDP approved would still just reflect the 2005 PDD. Yeah. And then you cross take the cross hashing out and then you know it's approved.

So it sounds like there's consent at least been two of the board members about updating certain parts of that map as FPDPS are approved. Oh yeah. Absolutely. Okay. Whether it's grayed out or reflects the 2005 PD, we at least agree on that. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So then really is the decision to Gar's point if you would like those other areas to be grayed out versus showing the bubbles. You know, we're not when I Does it say on this map down below that it's from the 200 um 3D on on this future land use map. it does not call out the the 2003 or 2005 PDDs specifically, but they they are referenced earlier in the text of the plan.

So, it's I think it might be I think it might be appropriate to have that um just a note on there that references that. And I think there's a reference also um that you said that there will be changes made. Maybe you could read that so that but is that reference on the map itself? Well, this is in the actual document. But yeah, we could put it on the map as well.

Yeah, you know, it's a little box, just an inserted box on the bottom of the map that says that um uh however would you would explain that the base map was from the So DVD from 2003 or whatever it was or five. I mean this is just a conceptual design. The colors and the boundaries of the colors aren't exact. Yeah. To me just it just is for imagination in my mind. It's kind of pretty,

but it gives you an understanding of what kind of uses, not necessarily the planning area specific and the open space. And I think that's the key. Yeah. So, we could add um the following note, you know, just like a asterisk asterisk

here. And so, would the board be comfortable with adding that note and using the land uses as shown? Again, recognizing that as FPDPS are approved, it this would be updated and amended to reflect those approvals. And wasn't there some specific language in there that you cited the other day that really called out the knowledge that we understand that there will be changes? Yes. On page 161.

Yeah. Page 161. Any future amendments to these areas are subject to review and approval by the town in conjunction with the plan development amendment procedures and their respective annexation agreements.

Thank you, Garrett.

So, could areas that are labeled low density, medium density, high density, could they change in terms of their density? I think the density designation especially for the areas in West Mountain for example is somewhat subjective and simply based on the number of residential units um that are approved for these planning areas and the acreage of those planning areas um as well as the type of residential units whether it's um single family detached or attached multif family residential units. So um generally speaking the planning areas that are depicted as uh medium or high density allow for um attached duplexes, triplex town homes up to multif family condos, whereas the low density residential generally only allow uh single family detached. So it is it is meant to be consistent with the 2005 PDD,

but there can be density transfers within those areas, right? So that could change.

Well, ultimately, yes, the density transfers, uh, you know, staff would evaluate and review those in conjunction with the applicable, you know, regulations and procedures from the annexation agreement and PDDs. Um, so in theory, yes, it is possible that say a area that's identified as low density residential on this map uh is proposed for a density transfer that brings it more into the medium density side of things. Uh but again uh staff would not evaluate that density transfer against this map itself but rather just by the density transfer uh procedures and and requirements if that makes sense.

Whereas the uh parks and open space area is not subject to change in terms of the any development. So within the 2005 PDD for Grant Park, um 23W is open identified as a open space and facilities land use. Uh the primary use that's identified within planning area 23W in the West Mountain is a golf course. Um I think the primary standard that staff is looking at in review of that 23W area is total acreage. um as well as the fact that no residential lodging or commercial uses are entitled within um that planning area. So um as far as the shape or location of the open space as it is depicted on here um just as all the other planning areas and roadway features as depicted here they are subject to change and um will will be finalized with an FPDP submitt and again this is simply reflecting what was shown on the Grand Park PDDD from 2005. So Garrett, we currently have uh the potential of density transfers in that area, but really in the summer of 2028, there's much greater potential for change. Correct.

Potentially. Okay. What does the um asterisk say again? the clubhouse location underlying land uses. Um, you could you could add a sentence that says subject to change based on FPDP approvals. Does that verbiage make sense to the board? You guys think?

Yeah, I think so. Okay.

Put it in there or make it look box. Yes, staff will work to make this look nicer. Um, but if if the board is okay with this language, then I believe we could move forward with adoption of the ordinance and staff will just make these changes and then publish the document um on our website.

I don't think we're taking public comment on this. So, do you want a motion? Yeah. I'd like to make a motion uh to approve ordinance 532 series 2026, an ordinance approving and adopting the Frasier Forward comprehensive master plan for the town of Frraasier and such additional territory is included therein as authorized by the Colorado Revised Statutes as amended, specifically title 31, article 23 part two as amended with the language we just added and with the map and with the map uh showing the actual areas that is cross dashed with the colors not the gray out we don't have to

second any further discussion all in favor I any opposed thanks okay updates all right updates violation so we're not Okay. Good night, brother. Uh, updates, please. Article on 15 and article 25. Sarah, we've got some good updates. Would you like to share?

Lori kind of stole my thunder earlier, but um, we did receive an additional $350,000 in grant funding from Strong Communities towards the St. Louis infrastructure. Um and then uh separately wanted to let you know that um Trout Unlimited has been working with Learning by doing and they are going to take the lead on the Safeway Bed project that John Uert presented on um back in January at our board meeting. So um they are going to hopefully be seeking um funding from OOLRT um in this spring round that's coming up of grant application cycles. So, we'll likely have something in terms of a letter of support for that in a future board meeting agenda.

Great. Sarah, that grant is that for infrastructure we've already put in or future infrastructure? What is that exact? It's it's infrastructure that hasn't yet gone in. So, they had um a bit of money left in the pot because another project had pulled out and so we applied for that that funding and got an additional 350,000. So, will that go towards the third building? No, it has to go towards horizontal infrastructure. So, it's the streetscape work that still has to happen. Um, trying to remember exactly what's in strong communities. It's largely road and streetscape infrastructure and some plant investment fees. Okay. Thanks. Yeah.

And then, um, lastly, we'll have a more formal update on this. Um, I believe it's one of our meetings in March, but we've been working with both Amtrak and COT on um, improvement and support for the transit center hub. Um, so we're working with Amtrak to hopefully have them help assist with some of the ADA improvements that are needed. And then C DOT had some planning money available to work with um a consultant that they already have a contract with. Um so they had about $25,000 that can go towards kind of last mile planning. Um and so we are looking to kick that off if the weather cooperates next Wednesday. They're going to come out and just kind of do a walking tour around that transit area and look at things like sidewalk connections and um multimodal transportation connections. And then we can work with them to actually develop a scope to tap into some other funding they have again with this contract with this consultant to do some station and station area planning and kind of look at some more long-term options and do community engagement. So, we're going to have COT come to a board meeting and talk a bit more about that and what that can look like. Um, but I think it's a great opportunity. It's money that's available now. We don't have to wait for it. We there's no grant requirements. We don't have to do grant reporting or grant applications. Um, so it kind of was just a nice opportunity that we have fallen into with C dot. So, would it take much for us to take her sign off of the brick standards

and just put like future transit building or just maybe put something over it? Yeah. Yeah. We've been poking around with that idea. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if we we'll know better if we have to move those, but they kind of fit with the new sign recommendations from for wayfinding. The pillars a little bit could be worked with. I don't know. But anyway, it would be I think it'd be good to pull our sign down. Yeah, fair enough. Yeah, just to get it pulled down. Yeah, we can look at that. Yeah. So people aren't confused. They come to town and they're like, great. What? What?

Any other updates? One staff. I move to second. Any further discussion? All in favor?