Board of Trustees - Regular Meeting

Are we recording?

Yes.

Call to order the Town of Fraser Board of Trustees meeting Wednesday, June 3rd, 2026 at 6.01 PM. Can I have a roll call, please?

Katie Fisher.

Adam Quicken.

Peggy Smith? Julie White? Katie? Oh, sorry. Katie Soles.

Brian Sirkwenek. Could I have a motion to approve the agenda, please?

So moved. I'll second.

Any further discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Could I have a motion to approve the consent agenda that have the minutes for May 20th, 2026?

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Second. Any further discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. We'll move on to open forum. This is for business not on the agenda. So if you would like to approach the board, you could have three minutes of time at the podium. If you're online, please raise your hand.

Thanks.

My name is Alex Lee Skang. I applied for the position of town manager. I grew up in Florida. I have a condo in Sunsong, and I ran a business for the past 23 years down in Centennial. And I just wanted to say thanks for having me here, and I just wanted to see how this goes. I grew up on the East Coast, went to college at Harvard, and I'm interested in the position. So thanks for having me. Sounds good. Thanks.

Thank you, Alex.

Thank you. Anyone online. Okay. All right. We will move on to the freezer housing 30. so. Um, could I have motion to spend the board of trustees meeting and open the freezer housing authority.

So moved 2nd, all in favor. Hi. Okay.

All right, now we will discuss Frigidaire Housing Authority Resolution 2026-0601, approving property management agreement with Griffiths Blessing for St. Louis Landing. Sarah.

Is Griffiths participating tonight?

Yeah.

Great.

Yeah, thank you.

Hello, Board of Trustees. Sarah Catanzarite, Assistant Town Manager. We do have online with us Griffith Blessing. So I will let them introduce themselves in just a moment here and kind of share some of their experience and credentials with you. And then we do have a draft of a property management agreement that we can talk through. Just wanted to kind of let you know how Griffith Blessing has come in front of us today. They have been working with MAD since the beginning of this project. They were part of the original kind of RFQ that MAD responded to with them as part of that package as the property management company. So they have been providing to MAD guidance through various kind of questions in regards to property management as we've gone through the financing and some of those different things that have required their involvement. Once we have a property management agreement signed, if that is what the board wishes to do tonight, then we can start working with Griffiths Blessing more on the general kind of lease up for the St. Louis Landing project. And we will be talking about tenant preferences after this item so we can get to that. But first, I would like to let Tom and Mary Beth introduce themselves. They should be online with us. Hello.

Hello. My name is Tom Palachuk. I am one of the vice presidents in multifamily with Griffiths Blessing. I've been with Griffiths Blessing for about seven years, but I've been in the industry for close to 25 years, mainly in multifamily.

Hi, I'm Mary Beth White. I'm the regional manager in the Denver portfolio. I've been with Griffiths Blessing for four years, and I... have been in the property management sector for about 28 years.

Can you guys tell us a little bit about kind of just Griffith's Blessing in general and your experiencing managing properties, particularly properties that have income requirements and just kind of the lease up process?

Sure thing. Well, Griffith's Lessing, we've been around for a while. We've been around since 1985. We are based out of Calder Springs, and that's where our main office is. But we do have other satellite offices. Our second office is in Denver, and that's where both Mary Beth and I office out of. But we oversee multiple properties within the mountain region. In general, in the mountain region, we have about 19 properties and about close to 1,300 units. Griffith's Blessing in total, we oversee 94 properties and just about 10.8 thousand units. In that portfolio, we have a little bit of everything. We have conventional, we have high tech, we have income restricted, we have student housing. We have done many, many lease ups, especially in the mountain region. In the mountain region, I believe we've completed about 11 lease-ups. That is primarily most of our region in that neck of the woods. We also do commercial too. We manage over about 6.3 million square footage of commercial space. But Mary Beth and I, that's not something we're involved on at all. That is just a completely different department within Griffiths Blessing. But we are mainly multifamily. Um, yeah. I can't think of anything else right now.

Does the board have any questions for Griffis Blessing before we jump on into the agreement?

Have either of you in your past roles been the ones leasing up these properties with restrictions? Yeah. Mary Beth, have you?

I have not done the lease up part of it, but I have ran a mixed-use LIHTC 55 and older community in Denver. And we did take it over at 75% occupied and got it up to about 95% before the ownership moved on with it.

Okay. Yeah. I've done many, many lease ups, just not income restricted. So Mary Beth is definitely my right hand person when it comes to anything like that. She has a lot of really good experience with that.

Do you see any unique challenges with our project? And if so, how do you anticipate?

I don't from anything. The product that is being built sounds really fantastic. And from what I know in my other mountain towns and my other mountain regions that we've done lease ups in, there's a really, really strong demand. So no, I don't really see a problem. I think it will go very smoothly.

We have questions about the agreement. Should we wait until we start running through it? Sure.

Any other questions for Griffith's Blessing before we jump into the agreement? And so I did want to point out 2 edits that we have made today. 1 of them was per Katie's suggestion. There's a tenant management plan that's included as an exhibit that kind of goes through some of the different responsibilities of. The management company, but we have moved into the agreement itself under managers duty, provide tenant management and all associated duties as outlined under the residents managers responsibilities as part of the schedule C management plan.

Thank you.

Yeah. And then under the management fees, which I believe is the 1st exhibit. We had left off two fees that should have been included. And so after some back and forth with Griffiths earlier today, utility fees and damage fees. So their management fee would be 3%. That's in addition to any actual expenses of the project, which we would cover and would come out of the revenues from the project. I have looked at this in comparison to other similar projects, and that very much seems to be in line with kind of the industry standards.

Okay.

So if the board did opt to approve this management agreement, I would ask that you guys, as part of your resolution, just with these edits.

Okay.

Yeah.

Just to clarify, it's 3% of the revenue or the rental revenue? Correct.

Okay. The rental revenues and then some of these different kind of fees that are listed here are considered part of that general rental revenue. We have clarified that things like subsidies to the project from the town would not count towards that 3%. Yep. Okay.

On the fees, is this a good time for a question on that? Yep. So on the additional services fees and for a manager, executive director, regional manager, early on, it seems like in the first year or two, we should have some gratis with that because there's going to be a lot of unexpected things coming up. And I'm not sure if you all are willing to do that.

Well, with what those fees are, they are really kind of outlining the over and beyond. Like an example I can give is like if you had a third party needing to do an audit and you needed our accounting department to adhere with your third party, That is something kind of over and beyond the normal day-to-day life of the management agreement. So that is usually what these are here. We will usually outline anything that we start to say, hey, that's a little bit over and beyond. But to your point, yes, your first year lease up, you're going to have involvement from me, Mary Beth, possibly even other people in GB, they probably wouldn't fall under that because that's just a part of the service. It's more thinking of those extra things that would be out of really our realm or our control.

What are some other examples of that?

Gosh, I mean, like a HUD audit is usually a big one. We recently had one where a property converted from a cash basis to an accrual basis. And there's a lot of backend on just with accounting in general with that and a lot of manpower behind that to get that to convert correctly. But I mean, if you're not thinking of anything like that, that wouldn't really apply.

So, we have had this agreement reviewed by Butler snow who we've been working with on the bonds for legal counsel. I think their lens was primarily in terms of making sure it was going to have compliance with and our different funding sources and making sure that. Um, had what they needed in there to ensure that they are properly meeting the verifications for income and things like that with. And then we've also had Ken's office review this to verify that there are appropriate kind of legal protections for the town. I think as we work with Griffiths Blessing, they've been thus far, it's a fledgling relationship, but pretty responsive. But I think as we go through that first year, you know, I wanted to make sure that their fee structure seemed in line with other similar property management companies and types of projects and that we had those legal protections. I think as we forge ahead and are in the weeds with them, we can figure you know, obviously revisit this after that first year. And if there's things that we find to be lacking, can address that. But I believe that this at this time kind of covers the general responsibilities of what we would want from a property management company with kind of a transparent fee structure and the legal protections that we would expect in such an arrangement.

So what is the 4,000 a month? What does that equate to in terms of occupancy?

That is a good question.

Let's just say if it was 80% occupied, what would be the gross revenues?

And I had previously looked at what that 3% would equate to, and I do not remember that number off the top of my head. if we were to be, say, fully leased up and what we would expect to be coming in for revenues, the $4,000 would be the minimum base that we would pay.

Right. I don't understand. I'm just wondering how that equates to, you know, in terms of gross revenues. I mean, it sounds reasonable to me, but... Like what percentage it is.

I would anticipate that we would generally be paying a much higher rate. That would be the base level. Yeah, yeah.

Dave Kuntz, What we have about 70 units and building see coming online first. 133,000.

Dave Kuntz, yeah. Dave Kuntz, That would be your gross revenue, not.

So yeah, that first building, once it's online, should be pretty close to that $4,000. It just also helps compensate for the ramp up in marketing initiatives that will take place with this as well. I think that's part of the reason that you typically see these 12-month initial terms with the property management company, just because they need some time to get settled, get the operations up and running, make policy decisions on how they operate. But also just the marketing campaign that they... Dave Kuntz, You know they've already demonstrated it talks about previous projects, where they do a good job on that marketing and getting that pool of applicants that one sure that we, you know can drive down that vacancy rate as much as possible just allows them to kind of get in place.

Dave Kuntz, No that's that's right um so when would this agreement start when we start paying that 4000 a month.

So once we sign this agreement, it starts and that we can start working with them on that lease up process and getting a website up. So we have a landing page with information and even before they're officially ready to start actually having tenants sign on the dotted line, we can kind of collect an interest list. That fee structure does not start immediately. Tom, I know I asked you about this and you sent me or BJ sent me that price structure initially.

I'm trying to look into find it. I want to say it's usually 60 days before first occupancy, but it could be 30. That's why I just, I don't, don't a hundred percent quote me on that.

Yeah. So we're not, we're not starting off paying 4,000. Right. Thank you. Yeah. That was one of my questions as well.

Talked about the other day. You know, we've got limited options up here and there's a lot of people that are going to be trying to get out of leases and giving them some extended period of time so that, you know, they don't sign immediately and have to move because they're going to lose their deposit and have to break their lease. So how does that factor into the pay scale? How much lead up time? You're talking, you said 30 days or 60, but could be 90. I don't know.

So Tom, with an assumption that we likely will start having tenants move in mid-November, providing for something like 90 to 120 days for those tenants to understand that they've been accepted and they've been approved to move in and secure one of these units. How much of a buffer time do you guys see with this initial ramp up?

30 days, usually. Would you agree with that, Mary Beth? Yeah. Yes. I'd say usually about 30. Yeah. And our best, what we're going to do is we're going to try to release as much as possible. So usually 30 to 60 days is really when we start hitting it and we really start our marketing efforts. Our goal is to really be pre-leased as much as possible, especially going into Q4. Not a lot of people love to move in Q4. So our really strategy is going to be to try to

capture some of the end of the summer months to see if we can get some pre-leasing done i think we're going to see a lot of people moving q4 that's kind of our peak season up here

Would you put your mic a little closer for me?

So Sarah, thank you. $4,000 a month. Oh, I'm sorry.

No, you're good. Go ahead.

The housing authority pays that. And what fund does that come out of? Or is that just in the bank account?

Oh, Adam.

Is that going to be asked of us?

No, no, no, no, no. So Lori and I have been working with our finance team to try to make sure we understand and are ready for all the different flows of funds and how this is all working. So we have a trust account set up with UMB. So not to steal our update thunder from later, but we are set to close on our bonds tomorrow morning, which is very exciting. At long last, all that money will go into actually several funds at UMB, right, depending on You know, there's an operating, there's a reserve fund. We have a debt service fund. And so we will work with Griffith's Blessing to figure out what makes the most sense in terms of how they access funds without us needing to sign up on every little expense and give them money. But they would collect those rents. They would go into a bank account. and they'd be able to pay money out of that bank account in terms of how we exactly set that up is still to be determined in terms of Griffith's blessings role in accessing that money to run the project. But it will be through these accounts that are being set up in UMB that are specific to the Fraser Housing Authority. And then the subsidy that the town is committed to, you know, would move from our general fund to one of these funds.

So is there a copy in here on sample lease for? Winners, I mean, not, not yet.

Um, our next conversation on the agenda tonight is to continue that tenant preferences conversation. Um, and then once we kind of confirm that we are moving in the right direction that the board wants to see. We'll be working with Griffith blessing as well as our legal team to make sure that 1, we're compliant with all our grant funding sources in terms of what this looks like. Um. As well as fair housing laws and practices, um. Griffith's Blessing, I imagine, has several template leases if you guys want to speak to any of that. But we would then look to have those leases kind of customized to what we're looking for specific to stainless landing.

And we actually use the National Apartment Association lease and the CAA approved lease. So it's both national and state approved.

So are these going to be like one year leases or six months or are they going to be month to month? I mean, how is that going to work?

we have been talking about year.

We always prefer at least a year, especially in lease up, even a year plus, just to get yourself so you have a buffer, so you make sure you lease up and stabilize the property and not starting to have renewals coming up. So yes, at least minimally 12 months.

Okay.

So I have a question not about money, but so you'll have your property supervisor and then the resident manager who has quite a list of duties. Property supervisor, are they here in Frayser or are they someplace else that they answer to?

We will have an onsite manager actually on the, at the property, a hundred percent.

Resident managers. That would be your resident manager. Cause on, on this agreement, there's development staffing, including job responsibilities are as follows property supervisor, the development supervisor and ensure that onsite employees are trained and familiar with their job related. And then the resident manager.

I would imagine that it would be the resident. And I would assume that Mary Beth would be that supervisor that you're reading.

Okay. Mary Beth is shaking her head. So Mary Beth, let's say through the grapevine, we hear that the resident manager is whatever, being very unsatisfactory in some of their roles. Who would we go to? You would come directly to me. Yes. Okay.

Um, so I, I meet with my managers, um, at least three times a week. One is a one-on-one one is with the, we usually do an owner call. Um, and then I also do a, um, with my portfolio, I do another manager meeting. Um, so at least three times a week they meet with me. And then my plan is to be at the property, um, myself and or my director of maintenance services at least twice a month. Okay, great.

Well, you've been at this a long time, so I have a lot of faith in you. Yes, I have.

Discussions with Griffith's Blessing is that generally they would allow the person in that position to choose if they wanted a unit on the property or to live somewhere else in the area. Yeah. But they would be local.

Okay.

I've got a question. Tom and Mary Beth, how do you guys, do you guys have a process where you collect any type of feedback to, I think, to Katie's point from the residents that are living in these apartments as far as trying to get good feedback as far as how to improve quality of the site or services that you guys provide?

I think the key to any successful property is having communication. And that can be through surveys, that can be through resident events, that can be just one-on-one interactions. But to answer your question, yes, we can easily always survey our residents to find out what's going well, what isn't. But usually it's the actual resident events, getting people together and creating that sense of community. That's actually when you get the best feedback, I personally think.

We'll check with you later on what that would look like there. Okay. It'd be great.

Multifamily is always interesting.

Yeah. Summertime. Oh. When you have it outside. Okay.

Any other questions?

No, I don't think so. Okay. Okay.

I don't want to make a motion.

So I'll make a motion to approve resolution, Frazier Housing Authority Resolution 20260601, approving property management agreement with Griff's Blessing for St. Louis Landing. Can you make that motion, including with the edits that Sarah outlined in her presentation? Thank you.

a second second okay further discussion does any public want to make a comment before we vote okay all in favor aye aye any opposed okay motion carries okay great exciting look forward to working with you guys now we'll see how this next one goes and we'll keep we'll keep tom and marybeth here in case they want to weigh in or you have questions for them related to the conversation sounds good all right uh can i get a motion to close the fraser housing authority and resume the board of trustees so moved second all in favor any opposed okay All right, moving on to discussion and possible action regarding St. Louis Landing, tenant preference and leasing. Sarah and the Griffith's Blessing team.

Thank you. So, what we are looking for this evening in regards to this matter is just confirmation of the board's direction. Back on April 1st at the board meeting, we discussed kind of potential approaches to structuring tenant preferences for St. Louis Landing, including tiered systems lottery waitlist. So this staff briefing outlines what I understood the direction to be at that time, as well as some areas where I'd like your additional feedback or kind of confirmation. As a next step, once we have that confirmation, we can continue to discuss as needed. But the idea is that I would work closely with Griffiths Blessing, again, as well as our legal team, to make sure that we are drafting kind of formal policies that we're able to implement, both in terms of Fair housing again, in terms of grant restrictions and funding restrictions, and that's something that would actually be feasible for us to manage by Griffith blessing with support from the town of Frazier stop. So on that note, I'm just going to go through kind of this staff briefing and look for kind of yeas or nays on some items, and then where we're looking for additional information. A spreadsheet did go out, and I have information from Brian on his thoughts on what should happen here, so I can share those as well. But we'll just kind of talk through the items. The spreadsheet really matches the staff briefing, so... When you say it did go out, was it in the email that I didn't see today? It was emailed out the end of last week.

This one. Oh, he's got it there.

Okay. Yeah. So no worries though. We'll talk through it. It was just to help inform hopefully a more structured conversation. So we'll try to stay on track here, but discussion's good as well. So what we talked about is having a tiered lease up, right? In part due to Some of the different funding that's involved, we do want to make sure that we rent all the units. With prop 123 funding, we are really tied to we have this many units at this. We can't we don't really have any flexibility with that. So, in an effort to make sure we are fully leasing all units that the project can continue to pencil. We want to allow for some flexibility. So the base qualifications to live at St. Louis Landing are you must meet the AMI requirements, the area median income, and the unit must be occupied as your primary residence. Um, with the tiered system, we would look at everybody that applied that met the criteria of tier 1. And would lease them up and then if spaces remain, we move on to tier 2 into tier 3 and we can continue to. Differentiate as needed. So tier one, what was discussed was that being focused on Frazier workforce and then countywide critical workforce. So anybody that works at a physical business within town limits. So, you know, if you work at Frazier, Tyron Auto, if you work at Sharkey's, you would be part of this tier. And then critical workers that work anywhere within Grant County. And we'll talk about critical workers in a second here. Stop me at any time if you have questions. Tier two, again, you still got to meet the AMI primary residence, but just having somebody who is physically employed within Grant County. So that could be any profession anywhere within counties of it. One item that I would like to propose potentially adding here that I had meant to include and had forgotten about was potentially looking at somebody working regionally whose region includes Grant County. As an example, at the housing seminar that I was at today, our division of housing rep lives in grand junction, but he can, he is required to live anywhere in the region that he is serving. Um, so looking at somebody like that, who doesn't physically have to be in grand County, but I think they're a great person to have in grand County. Right. And they are working with us and kind of supporting the county. But I'll throw that out on the spot for consideration as part of tier two.

So would that fit into remote? Because he would have to be working remotely because you can't commute to Grand Junction.

He is. And when we get to tier three. Yeah. But he's working, whether he's in Grand Junction or here, he's remote. Right. Because he's serving a vast region and he can't live in Grand Junction and here, for example. The same, I had a similar conversation with one of the ladies that works for Senator Bennett's office that she ended up in the community where the deed restrictions allowed her to be eligible because a lot of the deed restrictions in these mountain resort communities, she was not eligible because she wasn't considered a physical worker. So something for consideration that could go in tier two or it otherwise would fall into tier three or tier one if you wanted. Does that make sense?

Yeah.

I would just be careful with regionally how that can be translated as far as like contractors that work in regional areas, but maybe it's more public service, state, federal related.

That's what I was thinking. Yeah. I was thinking. I think you just. My Q2 friend in Grambling or, you know, there's people like that that service seven counties or, you know.

Yeah, and again, you may have sales rep that have a vast region, so they are working in Grand County as well as elsewhere. How do we want to treat those workers?

The board rep covers Jackson County as well.

So how would we address that right now before we move on? How would we change that verbiage, be physically employed within Grand County?

Or you are someone working regionally whose region includes Grand County? I can think about the language. I guess the question is, if you want to include them, do you want to include kind of government-facing type personnel or anybody?

It makes sense, so long as they're of service to Grand County.

Yeah, agreed.

They're working here, so that's an initiative.

They're of service to Grand County. Okay. Yeah.

I kind of wondered about the Frayser workforce in tier one that eliminates anybody that works at the ski area. It does, but they become part of tier two. So you don't, I mean, I don't think there's that many businesses in Frayser. Yeah.

There's not. And again, it's giving them priority.

But I think that, yeah, I think that Frayser, anybody that lives and works here should have a, or have a priority.

I just, I personally kind of just mixed the Frayser part and just went with Grand County because people move jobs, you know,

So are you talking tier two?

No. Well, I'm just comparing.

Okay.

Grand County versus Frazier specific.

Yeah.

And kind of to Peggy's point, there's not that many jobs in Frazier specifically. Right. And if people, you know, worked at Frazier and then they decided to work for the ski resort and, you know, they still qualified. I don't know. I feel like if you're working in Grand County, you're still helping the community.

So I think that we're going to get them to the initial sign up. So, so they're working here in Frazier.

so they change jobs but they're still working in the county that wouldn't mean that they would lose their unit it just gives this just gives them priority right as long as they need the ami and it continues to be their primary residence once they get the unit it's theirs if they continue to meet those other repairs so it's just a question of if you want to give priority to those people who are physically working at businesses located in Grand County, or if you want to take them out and just prioritize critical workforce.

I think they're talking, I mean, I mean, it's Frazier Project. A Frazier resident should have first crack at it. I agree.

I mean, substantially, to your point, Katie, substantially subsidized by the taxpayers of Frazier.

Right. And if it's a short list, then we get to tier two quickly. That's kind of the way I see it.

I could be totally wrong. I imagine for initial leads up, we will move through these tiers. I mean, I think there's a lot of demand, but there's so many people looking for an apartment, you know, come November 1st when that time, you know, to sign up comes around.

Even if that's the case, I mean, I think setting it up, it might even just be a political thing to say we're taking care of Frasier people first.

And it allows them to walk to work. Yeah. Yes.

Which is a good thing. Slots open for tier two people. I mean, they should, you know, Frazier employees, they should have priority. It's not saying we're not going to consider tier two. It's just down the list.

Quarter million plus a year in the list.

Okay. So I am hearing that the general consensus is to keep that in Tier 1. Yes. Okay. And then Tier 3 is anybody who just meets the AMI requirements and are going to occupy it as their primary residence. Right. So again, that would include remote workers. We'll talk about retirees in a second, but retirees could fall here. Really just anybody else, as long as they are going to occupy it as a primary residence and meet the income requirements. Okay. So what we talked about, are we generally in agreement with this tiered structure? And we'll get into further prioritization.

Yeah, I was going to say, we haven't talked about longevity.

Yeah, in terms of additional priority. Okay. Where to plug it in.

So in terms of employment standards, um, what I believe we landed on was that we were looking for an average of 30 hours per week or 1200 hours over the course of a year. All in agreement. Okay.

Um, I mean, how are we going to, I guess my other question was, you know, when someone terminates some point, what happens to them? Do they lose their unit? Or if they have a year lease, they just finish out a year lease?

The way I envision this, and if the board wants to see something different or if there's different thoughts, we can talk about it. But again, this gets them into the unit. Because we are allowing people to live there ultimately as part of that tier three, as long as they're meeting the income requirements and the primary residence requirement, like they would stay in their unit if they have a way to pay for it.

So they can change jobs, they can take time off, whatever.

And how do you manage their income requirement?

So Griffith's Blessing has that lovely job in terms of doing that verification. And I believe we have to do that on an annual basis. Correct. If somebody does start to make too much money, if we have a spot for a higher AMI, we could potentially move them on paper to that spot. They wouldn't necessarily have to move their unit. But once they've kind of reached above that 120% AMI, they would have to find something. with the idea that they should at that point be able to afford market rate. And that is what our funding sources require.

About 120 or 140?

We have some flexibility for them to go up to 140. But once their lease comes up that next time, I believe that flexibility goes away.

So when you have, say, a single mom with teenage kids and they have part-time jobs, are those jobs counted as household income?

That is an excellent question. Did you say they're over 18 or they're under 18? Well, it could be either way.

Did you catch that, Mary Beth?

Yes. So over 18, it would be considered part of the household income, but under 18, no.

And if they're only home for the summer, does that kind of throw things out of whack again?

That can still be put in. So we actually have In our system, we have what's called an affordable platform in our property management system. And we get to put all that into the system and it lets us know per those requirements. So it can let us know, depending upon how much they made for those three months, if it affects the entire year or not.

Okay.

So it's not the primary residence, just their income, it's the whole household? It is.

It's definitely, it is done on by the household, yes. Okay.

And by leaseholder. Yes. Leaseholder only, and you can't be a leaseholder under 18.

So household income for 18 and above within the household. Yeah.

Yep.

But remember the AMI table, how it goes with, you know, more people, you know, the...

But it kind of gets tricky if kids are off at college, come home for the summer. Then you're like a one person. And then all of a sudden, you've got two kids that show up and work construction and make $30 an hour or something.

Yeah, but it's only for three months. Yeah, you've been picked up.

I did not say that on the official record. I would think we would look at what level of flexibility we're allowed around that based on the funding, if they are visiting versus when it becomes their primary residence. Right. Yeah.

Okay. We're going down a lot of rabbit holes. All right. All right. Always. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. So eligibility, again, I don't think we need to get into the weeds of the mechanics, but Griff is busing as part of their duties would be verifying employment documentation, work stubs, or an offer letter from an employer. So somebody who is looking to move here to accept a job that would qualify them.

Any questions?

Okay, so in terms of defining critical workforce, I kind of threw down on here everything that we discussed. So we can keep it all, we can take stuff off, we can add something, but I'll just go through the list and let me know if it's a yay or a nay or if we need more discussion. So public safety and emergency response personnel that would include law enforcement officers, firefighters, fire district personnel, EMTs, paramedics, other emergency medical response personnel, judicial and correctional personnel. We all good with that? Healthcare and dental workers. Good. Municipal and county employees. So healthcare, would that cover vision also? I think so, yeah. Okay. I think it would also cover mental health. Okay, great. Teachers, this would include early childhood educators and then just kind of the various school district staff. So the janitors, secretary, front desk, all of those folks.

I'm good with that.

Lift transit workers. Grocery workers was something that somebody threw out. If we are keeping kind of businesses physically located within Fraser in that top tier, that would already include Safeway. So if we keep grocery workers as part of the critical workforce, that would expand that to like city market, the new Nash market. So that was one question if you guys want to keep that or if Safeway was really what you were looking to prioritize.

I think it's, I don't think it's good to pinpoint one particular business.

No, I don't think so either.

And you wouldn't be, they would just fall within that category of businesses located physically.

Right. So I think we just take that out.

I think of it in terms of COVID, the essential workers, the guy who had to go to work every day, I don't know what is going on. Good point.

yeah but if we're already separating fraser businesses out then this is a little redundant it's just yeah it just helps out city market yeah yeah i would just delete that one

Okay, so we're taking off that one. Okay.

And I thought about in addition to municipal and county employees, we probably should add special districts.

So next is other government and special district employees. So as examples, this could include US Forest Service, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District. Yep. Okay, great. Nonprofit employees.

don't think so i would i mean i i think again if the non-profit is based in fraser then they're already going to be in tier one and then if it's a non-profit that's not based in fraser like well then they should yeah they should be in tier two with everybody yeah everybody else agreed agreed okay so they just chair two would cover them anyway right okay good point yeah the more that we can simplify it the better right

I'm going to revisit this every six months or a year or something to tweak it because I don't know if these aren't hard and fast rules. I mean, things will change or we may have different opinions after six months or a year.

But it may depend on leasing rates as well.

Right. I mean, if we, you know, running 50% occupancy, we may have to change some of this stuff.

Well, tier three basically just. Yeah. Yeah.

But we can definitely revisit it. I don't know that we need to revisit it every six months, but I think, you know, you know, in a year, I think lease up is going to look different than waitlist and how many units are opening up. Like at some point, if it's super competitive, every time a unit opens up, that's a different situation of, you know, when a unit opens up, nobody needs that kind of thing. So yeah, I envision this continuing to evolve. I think one of the questions is do we stick to really strict parameters or do you allow some level of kind of staff administrative flexibility in defining? One question, just because I mentioned mental health before, if it is a nonprofit kind of mental health focus, do we still want to include that under that healthcare umbrella?

I think if they can argue for a higher tier, then they get to argue for a tier.

Yeah, okay.

Sarah, is this list what's going to be actually including what's here in the parentheses?

Those are there as an example.

Okay, just an example. Yeah. Not limited to.

This is definitely not. Again, this is just to make sure we have the appropriate direction to come up with a finalized, polished policy that would come back to you for consideration.

Okay.

Anybody that we are missing that you wanted to see included in the critical workforce?

You know, I was thinking about people that have worked in Grand County for

We're getting to that.

10 years. Something like that. Because if they're at the same job, they've been here.

Yep.

And I'm playing whatever role that is to be consistent.

So where we're looking at them right now is if we want to do some sort of weighted lottery or point system of giving them extra preference. So is that what you're suggesting? Or do you want to actually put them up in a tier?

Because they're not critical necessarily, but they would definitely, I think that they would deserve more weight.

Okay, yeah, and we're getting to that. So persons with disability, there are some mobility impaired units, they would receive first priority to have those ADA compliant units. Permanently disabled residents right now would fall under the third tier, unless the board wants to see something different or we're told something different by their housing practices. I think if we have an ADA unit, we need to agree that they automatically get that unit so that it's matched. Yeah.

I think there's limited opportunities for individuals in those situations.

That's the intention.

I said, I think there's limited opportunities for individuals in that situation. And I think those units have to be prioritized for that.

How many ADA units are there?

I do not, there are units, I don't remember that number off the top of my head. It was part of our division of housing application. All right, so eligible retirees, we talked about 62 years of age, having been employed within Grant County for a minimum of five years. And then we could determine if that's within the last five years, within the last seven years, how the board wants to look at it. I will say if they are considered as part of tier three, it doesn't really matter how we are defining them because they would just qualify based on those other. But if anybody at the board wanted to see them in a different tier, then we would want to distinguish this.

I have a similar opinion as the ADA. I think there is very limited opportunities for elderly people in this community, countywide. And I mean, I think there's more opportunities for childcare than there is for old people housing. So just to kind of put it in context. So I think somebody that's retired and that's worked here should be tier one.

do they have to have worked here so let's unless rather than well you know maybe well they're not there's further debate yeah but but yes i mean this is really for workforce housing primarily we get it if it gets locked up by you know retirees that are going to be there for years and years and years and it's going to it's not going to serve the purpose that we're we

You know, I kind of thought about that, and I'm looking at these rents and the AMIs, and I actually don't see that somebody in that situation would be looking for this because of the rents, and they would not be retired. They would still be working. So, you know, it kind of, I think it will play itself out and moderate itself.

Maybe there's a quota of units that would be for retirees who are 62 years young. Yeah.

A lot of retirees, they're our best volunteers.

Truly. Well, I think you're going to be, a lot of it's going to be based on that 30% AMI. And it's pretty hard to qualify for a 30% AMI if you have a job at McDonald's.

So you'll likely be on social security.

AMI for one person is $23,520. For 30%.

What percentage?

30% AMI. It's 23,500. I thought the average was 90-something, 93.

Yeah, if you go up to 100%, it's 78,400 is 100%. Okay.

So I think the question is, and then we can talk about how we're defining them, and

Does the board want to see them in a tier other than tier three? Adam has said tier one. What is the consensus of the board?

Well, if they tier one includes people that have lived in Frazier. Right. So they would be, so long as that can include retirees.

Well, tier one right now is somebody who is working at a physical business located within the Frasier boundaries. Or a critical workforce in Grand County. Yeah.

You know, a lot of these folks are the ones that have been here paying taxes all this time so that we could do these improvements that we've been able to do, a big part of it, and build a community. So I think that I'd like to see them bumped up to one or two.

What about a residency requirement? Do you want to have a residency requirement in Grand County or in Frayser?

I think it should be broader than just greater I think way to go well waited I think Frazier should have if it's for seniors again that's because they're the ones been paying the taxes on built this town that they should be weighted in their favor and then grand county and if it arm not necessarily employed within the last seven years because maybe they've been retired for 10 years and they have to find a different place to live, but they had worked. So I don't know if that, I don't think we should leave that within the last 10 years, minimum of five years. Do we know what I mean, sir? Somehow the wordsmith. Yeah. So it does address the fact that they've been here and they have worked.

over you know and i think what that's meant to address katie but you bring up a really good point if they're not just now retiring but have lived in this was meant to not include somebody who maybe worked here five years when they were you know 20 to 25 and have lived in florida ever since and now we're coming back kind of thing so we could bump it up anyway we could bump it up 10 years this could be my tenure spot

I don't think they should be tier one. We don't want them to become a retirement community, right?

This is for workforce. This is supposed to be where people can move up and home as they go. I think that you're right. They're just going to sit there and die there.

I think Clark's biggest problem was finding that 30%. If we can go to the seniors, that's where they're going to get it.

Well, in one point, ultimately, AMI is going to trump all. So if the only person in the pool that has a 30% AMI is number 500 on the list, they will get that 30% AMI. The question is, if you have multiple people meeting that 30% AMI, who do you want to prioritize? A couple suggestions. You could match them to the tier where their previous employment would land them if they were still working. Or if Or you could tier two might be a middle ground.

I know we're talking tiers a lot here, but I know the next part is leased up methodology. I think a point-based system makes the most sense. There should be multiple ways to get an apartment at this place. Maybe it's that you've lived here for over four years, or maybe it's that you've... There should be points for multiple options, and that can get you to the highest tier or the highest... level of points in my opinion so like my example is like longevity in grand county if you're four plus years you get three points if you're two to four years it's two points if it's one to two years it's one point zero or one year zero points you know and then points for how long you've worked in the community that kind of thing and maybe there's more points for fraser workforce versus working in grand county but what about like a high school teacher who gets recruited they didn't get any points We could, but we could wait. We could have points for critical workers. You know, three points just automatic if you're one of the critical workers.

So if we want to back up for just a second, I can explain the different lease-up methodologies, and then we can discuss kind of these... prioritization pieces um so with the tiered sequencing you will lease up tier one right and within tier one we can have a weighted lottery where if certain items give you an extra ticket in the lottery so there's still an element of chance but if you have longevity if you um graduated from high school like whatever we choose can get you extra tickets What Brian is suggesting is the point-based system where we take out the kind of game of chance, right? And you get assigned points based on the criteria that the board chooses. So within tier one, whoever has the most points, that's how we're going through the lease up. I suppose we could still do a lottery if we have people that end up, you know, they've all got 10 points, right? And there's only two units left. But that is the difference between the weighted lottery system versus a point-based system. But within how we currently have this structure with the tiered sequencing, it would still happen within tier one. So you do your lease up with tier one, there's units still available. Now you go to tier two and you look at people's points there. So a critical workforce is still gonna trump somebody who's lived in the community for 10 years. based on that tiered structuring so i just want to make sure we're all working with that same understanding so the first question is if we want to move forward with a point-based system or a weighted lottery within those tiers and if that is what the board wants to do then we can go through each of these and list what the board would want to prioritize through that point-based or weighted lottery system i will also throw out that if there's anything that Um, you want to like absolutely prioritize, they should be first in line. I mean, we could even create a, you know, a tier one before the tier one, um, Or there could be things like a first, I don't know if you call it a first right of refusal when you're talking about rental units, but if we wanted to provide that for, say, a town of Frayser employee, be it current or somebody that we want to offer a position to. It really, at this point, is up to the board. And then once again, we'll just bet that whatever we are doing is legal and in compliance. So on that note, we'll come back to the retirees. Okay. What are the board's thoughts on, are we all good with continuing with this kind of tiered sequencing? Yes. Okay. Do we want a weighted lottery system within that or a point-based system within that? Or just a simple lottery?

I just don't like the lottery aspect. It's like, I want somebody who just like, you know, I don't want the Orlando Magic getting to that. That's...

They have the same number of points and you have to have a lottery. Yeah, of course.

It could be whoever applied first gets to be above the next person.

That's thank you and that person time for so long. I get a hybrid. That got list left off this. System, but that was 1 of the options originally presented as well and winter park when they did their lease up for freak side. It was a 1st of course, or if you match the qualifications, you got a unit. They did not lease up on day 1. I also understand that not everybody can show up necessarily on day one, depending on their job or whatever it is. But you could do a first come, first serve within the tiers. And then the wait list is first come, first serve, again, within those tiers. So that is another option. I like that.

Mm-hmm.

What's the timeline for this? And when do we need to make a decision? Could this be the first iteration of our?

This will be the second iteration. Second.

It could be. I mean, if the board wants to go back and fill out the spreadsheets and send them to me, I can bring it back, you know, at a future meeting. But the idea today is to get directions so that we can start crafting a final policy. We can still make tweaks. But you probably want to avoid repeating this conversation too many times without kind of moving in a direction.

So your point system within each of these sections, like I said, first come, first serve, if they fit. And then if there's a question, then having some things that are weighted, some things that are important to us. like longevity in the community um right which local students would qualify for you know somebody that had been here being born and raised here and they're gone but they come back and they want to they want to make fraser home again they should really have a priority well does it have to be a graduate student or if they didn't graduate

right here well that's okay i guess that is a redundancy i didn't think about like because i have local high school graduate two points you know but then i also have longevity in the community like four years gets you three points so it's it's a little it's almost double dipping that's true that gives them a good head start yeah not wrong for sure

Brianne, I would say like you're prioritizing somebody who grew up here and it could be changed. Julie point of somebody who attended school here for X number of years or, you know, whatever.

We got to take care of the locals first, you know? Yeah. Sure.

Oh, yeah.

And maybe and maybe it'll keep kids and get them to graduate. They get cheaper housing. If they get the extra two points.

Well, do we want does the board feel comfortable making a decision about if you want to do first come first serve weighted lottery, simple lottery or point based system?

The point seems fine.

Yeah. Like the points.

Okay. And I think we can revisit this. And if at some point it makes more sense to switch to a waitlist first come first serve beyond that initial lease up, I think that would be a reasonable action line to take.

Yeah, I think entering into the second building is a good opportunity.

Yeah. And I mean, I guess I would see this for the buildings. But again, we can tweak this at any time. And we're going to have additional AMIs that are served as additional buildings come on. All right, so I've heard a couple votes for point system. Is that the consensus of the board?

Yeah, points.

Beautiful. All right. In terms of what we give points for, I would recommend that you choose either living in the community or being part of the workforce versus having those both on there. And then I've heard that it makes sense to do it at the Grand County level versus Fraser level, correct?

Mm-hmm.

So do we want living in the community or being a part of the workforce? For a lot of people, that'll be one and the same, but there is a distinction there.

I'd say living in the community. The consensus, I think, was working in Frayser.

And that's already on there. That's the tier one.

It's double if you live and work here in Frayser, right? They're keeping both.

But if we take Fraser out and we're looking at Grand County, does somebody get points because they've lived here for five years or 10 years? Or do you want them to actually be part of that workforce in Grand County?

I just don't know what they've been doing for the last five years if they weren't working here.

Could be a high school kid.

Could be a high school kid. It could be a retiree. It could be a remote worker.

It could be a remote worker. Something that's appearing as a question in my head is disability. I don't know. That's not... Is that considered working? Or is that? I don't know how that plays out.

Yeah, and I would like to ask legal counsel more about that.

in regards to fair housing and what that looks like. They definitely qualify if nothing else as part of Tier 3. But again, if you want to look at somebody who was working here and has become disabled or if they've always been disabled, what that looks like.

Somebody that can't work, I guess. Yeah. I guess I'm getting it.

Yeah, and that was one of the questions earlier. They do qualify in that Tier 3, but if we want to look at them differently than Tier 3.

Didn't we have something about the ADA specific?

The ADA specific units we would give priority to regardless to make good specific units. I mean, and Adam, one of the... All right. Are there thoughts on community versus workforce for longevity?

And that includes younger people that haven't been in the workforce. You could do a point a year.

And Adam had recommended.

So Brian's recommendation had been one to two years was one point, two to four years was two points, and more than four years was three points. So we're going to keep the points. You haven't been here very long. It seems like 50 years. You should give them 50 points.

My idea with the points is that if any one category doesn't exceed three points, then one category isn't going to trump everything else. That was my reasoning for it. Also, if you've been here for more than four years, you're pretty committed to being here right you know one to one to four years yeah right yeah yeah right so that was my logic that was entry school you're not gonna make friends with you and if you hit four years and you're like oh i don't know and then you get really good housing as an option well then you stay yeah so we might keep people here longer

All right, so we're going to go with longevity in the community. If you have really strong thoughts on how those three points be distributed, feel free to email them to me and we will incorporate them into the calculation. Thank you. All right, local high school graduates.

kids here don't graduate from the high school, but they graduate online, but they've lived here and they've grown up here. So that's something to consider. And what if you only live to your one senior year, does that matter over any kid that's gone on the way through here? Just things to think about there.

Oh, thanks. Preschool graduation, one toy.

Well, and the flip side of that coin is when you are 17 years old, you don't get a choice as to where you live. Right. Your parents moved here and maybe you had one year and you're like, I want to stay.

And you have to be 18 to be able to live in this complex. Right. Of your own space.

Right. Right. Exactly. So, you know.

And again, I think we can do so many years within the school system. To Antoinette's point, though, we have a lot of kids that are homeschooled. Yeah.

I think where you're living upon graduation is the most important thing. If it's an online school, but you're living in Fraser when you do it, then you graduated from here.

So now we're talking points, right?

Yes. And I'm going to encourage us based on time to not get too into the weeds of exactly how many points.

I can bring back scenarios to you for approval if you like.

I just said two bonus points for two points for being a high school graduate. What? Living in Frayser Well or living in Grinker.

Being a graduate.

Yeah.

Yeah. All right. Thumbs up. Being 12th grade. Graduates. Great. Previously displaced residents.

You're talking about maybe someone who like lost their house in the fire and like needs to find a place.

Or they moved down to the front range. Now they want to come back to St. Louis Landing. I mean, I think it kind of opens up a can of worms.

Yeah. I said no, because other things can drop it.

Like they have, if they're displaced, well, how long did they live here for?

How long were they in the workforce for? So they have other ways to get points.

Okay. Yeah.

That could be one, too. If we have a big event like that fire, we could reconsider.

Definitely. Right. Yeah. Yeah, good point.

If they move back up here, they're going to have a job, right? What's that? If they move back up here, they're going to have a job. Right. They would qualify it another way. Maybe they can just move back up here and be unemployed. Right.

This is just to give another weighted tier, give them maybe a higher priority over someone who's not displaced. Yeah.

And again, this all matters if we have more applicants than units. If we don't, everybody gets a home. Yeah. Great. Okay. So time on waitlist. So this will be looking into the future. And again, we can revisit if maybe we just move to a waitlist. But time on waitlist, if we are doing a point system, we're not looking at lottery attempts. But does everyone agree that that gives you some bonus points if you've been hanging out for a while waiting for? Sure.

This didn't even limit. I just felt like at one point per year that you're on the wait list.

Yeah.

You know?

Yep. On our wait list. Yeah. Okay. We're not talking Grandie's wait list. Right.

Just the state list.

We are not, but I would encourage us to perhaps revisit that as we look at housing regionally and with the Fraser Valley Housing Partnership. But right now, this would be state list landing. Do you have a master list? but we have talked about trying to create kind of master lists and systems so that, I mean, recognizing that we largely have a shared workforce and people move amongst these communities a lot based on where they can find a place to live. Prioritization for Tana Frazier employees. Yes.

Because we need our employees.

Michael, do you think that would be a benefit when hiring people too?

yeah i mean absolutely if you lose somebody who's running utilities these are hard people to get up here um but will they be able to qualify i mean that's still a requirement yeah yeah my requirements and it still has to be their primary residence yeah um so so yes i mean things influx as far as how difficult it is to get street operators or department heads or everybody in between yeah um so Yeah, I mean, I would see each one of those as critical. We don't have people who are just, you know, sitting around getting a paycheck. Everyone's like doing their part and just everything relates to public service. So the quality that's reflective of the town board as far as providing those quality of services.

So do we need to wait, town of Frazier? Yes. Okay. I would say yes.

And I have three. That's what I have for town. I have seen other projects and communities where they do put those folks at the top of the list. Okay. If the board wants to do that.

They're all tier one.

Right. But it would move them to the top of tier one. So if a unit is available.

Yeah.

That's like the first right refusal. that she had made earlier as far as when units open up and we have vacancies for certain positions, if they meet those AMI requirements, it could give them a first line, first opportunity for that unit. It's available probably. Yeah.

And I think it is a great retention and attraction tool if we can provide housing in a place that's really hard to get housing.

Yeah. So what do we anticipate? a lease out percentage to be like 97, 95. I mean, there's always going to be turnover, right? So, and I'm thinking about, is there generally one every three months for an employee or something like that?

I mean, I think in the pro forma for St. Louis Landing, I think it's the modeling is 93 or 95% occupancy.

I think it was maybe more like- So generally there's going to be a unit or two.

You have turnover. We have pretty good luck with turnover from a town, not having as much turnover with town. It's just, you know, everyone's got special cases.

I mean, once you have three buildings online, you'll have 129 units.

So there's going to be one, two, or three at any given time.

Yes. I mean, you've, we've seen that strategy to at the town of Winter Park, especially when they had vacancies for police officers. You know, that's something that they will do, especially if they have and not just police officers, but a variety of positions, they use that to their advantage to help get those those positions filled. getting people to clear the streets of snow, like those types of things. We should use that. Pretty critical.

Also, I texted one of the builders down there and asked him how many ADA units are in Building C. He said technically they all could be, four specifically designated, two two-bedroom and two studios. So four ADA units in the building. But they all could be.

They all could be. But they're going to have ADA requirements of the individual. But they'll be, those are the four that will be built out.

Built out, yeah, designed.

They've got lower countertops and things like that. All right. Are we moving employees to the top of the list? Yeah. Great. Okay. Households looking to move within St. Louis Landing to a different unit. So again, this would be down the road. Maybe a household changes or looking for a different size unit. They would move to that unit and their unit would open up.

I mean, that's a good. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, right. We talked about all that, right?

All right. The last one on here was military service. That could be someone just finishing up active duty. They could be currently on active duty and their family is here. It could be prior service. Michael's giving me a look.

Let's get points, I think.

Do they fit within all the other categories of it already?

I mean, right now they'd be tier three. Unless they have somebody who's working here. Or they may currently be working here and have past service. So the military just is not considered active.

You can differentiate between those currently enlisted or National Guard. I mean, you're not going to have full-time, you know, enlisted people living here. But you may have National Guard. You've got some part-time service members. that active if they're active part-time national guard something that sort of thing could be worthwhile otherwise dishonorable discharge is probably the right maybe a call you can discuss because i don't think you want to promote it for people that have a dishonorable discharge from the military okay my personal opinion yeah that are um active active duty then uh or yeah or partially tired i don't know tired

So Michael can help you wordsmith that. Okay, and again, you can let staff worry about getting into the weeds. We will bring back. Okay, but I'm hearing a yes. Again, it would just be points. Yeah, three points.

Say they work in Frayser and they're retired military. They get some points. Yeah, they're retired military.

Okay. Um, so on that note, going back to the retirees, any further thoughts on if we are comfortable leaving them in the third tier or if you want to see them in a higher tier?

I think someone that's lived here for 10 years has been a part of the community, but 10 years or longer should go up to a second tier.

Could we put that in the point system?

We're not doing tiers anymore. We're doing points.

We're doing points within tiers.

We're basically making this complicated.

But that's okay.

Right. Yeah, because we're trying to figure something out.

They're retired. They probably aren't making, they shouldn't be making that much money. They'll be booted up in the AMI. So then their AMI is what's going to qualify them for whatever they want.

Within their tier.

But so long as there's a year available.

They're not going to be bumped up to tier one.

Well, then again, like you say, though, to leave it at tier three, because we are, we need to provide for our seniors. Heck, I might be living there someday.

Like a boy from being on the town board for 12 years. I want 12 boys for that. That'd be fair. Sorry. How old are you participating there? Six.

All right, would you like us to come back to retirees in the future?

I'll just make just one point. The Grand County Housing Authority does provide a lot of resources and vouchers for those who are looking at senior living, assisted living circumstances. So they have like the Grand Living Senior Home, the Silver Spruce Apartments, Cliffview Assisted Living Center, Dave Kuntz, And they have some programs and vouchers vouchers that they said they work through and fun through grand county yeah for those types of initiatives. Dave Kuntz, And. Dave Kuntz, Just something that could be worth just researching.

Karen Hollweg, So I think you can leave tier three. Karen Hollweg, For a future. Dave Kuntz, For a long.

Karen Hollweg, Great. Karen Hollweg, A could be all. 55 plus or something like that.

Right, right. Yeah.

Yeah. suggested we leave them in tier three, but with points for longevity. For that.

I mean, they're getting they're getting points for longevity already.

But that they would just get those points. Yeah. A lot of work for paying cash.

I guess so. Yay, nay, maybe.

Sounds good. We got a home rule discussion. We still got to make it through. We'll get going.

Oh, we missed that one. Sorry. We were having a hard time.

Okay. I was saying that Katie has suggested tier three with, and they will get the points that they would get for. Get some points for longevity. Longevity.

Yeah. Great.

All right. Great. Last question for you then in this regard. It kind of one of the topics that came up last time, I think Julie brought up like a single parent who's working less than full time. I've seen in other policies exceptions for people who have been out of the workforce or working less due to illness, partial or temporary disability. Are there any groups that we want to make exceptions for in terms of that? work requirement and the number of hours. So potentially somebody that's working less hours or has worked less hours over the last year, which is what we'd be looking at due to any of these circumstances.

Okay.

So, so this would also include potentially could be kind of part-time working retirees that they would move out of tier three, but not be required to work the full 32 hours. Maybe it's 20 hours.

Like you say, if someone has been working and they become disabled, but they're covered, aren't they already?

Mobility impairment, they'd get those ADA units priority for those. But otherwise, we have them just in the general tier three category.

And if they're already living there, we're not going to give them a boot.

Correct. We're not giving them the boot. This question is really, do we allow people to work less hours and still give them consideration in tier one or two based on any of these circumstances, or do they just fall into tier three?

I think they stay in tier three. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. people that are working, you know, three hours, it's not a lot, it's not full time really in my mind, but, you know, people that are working in the community, you know, or service workers or whatever, that's what we're building this for.

Right.

All right. So I'm hearing we leave them in tier three, if that's where they qualify. Perfect.

All right.

If somebody would like to make a motion, just to confirm this direction.

You probably want to outline that motion, Sarah.

I believe, Antoinette, did you provide any? I did. I think the motion should just be that the staff prepares based on the conversation, brings forward an actual policy at the next meeting.

Yeah, could you tidy it up and bring it back? I wouldn't.

That sounded like a motion.

Yeah.

I'll second that.

Any further discussion?

Tidy it up.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay.

Thank you, Sarah. Thank you. Well done.

Okay. Let's see. So now we are on to town of Fraser home rules, survey results and discussion. Courtney and Magellan.

All right. Do we have Courtney online? Okay. So I'll just give a real quick introduction and then hand it over to Courtney to provide her presentation. But Courtney works with Magellan. We hired them to put out a survey to the community to kind of gauge understanding and interest. And I should let Courtney say all this because she'll say it more eloquently than I will. But just to kind of take the temperature on the possibility of moving forward with the Home Rule ballot initiative. So with that, Courtney, you want to introduce yourself and take it away?

Yes. Can you all hear me? Yes.

Thank you.

Want to make sure. Let me. There we go. Yeah, so as Sarah mentioned, my name is Courtney Seavers. I work with Magellan Strategies. We are a public opinion research firm. We are actually based out of Broomfield, Colorado, so just over on the Front Range. We conducted this survey in May. Excuse me, stepped ahead. Conducted this survey in May, and again, this was really to just kind of gauge voter support and opposition for town of Fraser potentially moving forward with a home rule ballot question. And so what we did here was, and I want to talk about this first, is voter registration and turnout demographics. So about, there's just over a thousand voters in the town of Fraser that would be able to vote on a potential home rule ballot measure. And really what I want to really explain from this demographic sheet, and I know this is a lot of numbers, is looking at 2022, That number is really what we expect turnout to be similar for a midterm election this year. And typically from midterm to midterm, odd year to odd year, presidential to presidential, those percentages rarely change. However, even though this is going to be a midterm this November, we are kind of expecting a little bit higher turnout based off of President Trump's first term. And seeing those numbers escalate and during his first term's midterm election. So we're anticipating more of a number between 2022 and 2024. But really, what does that mean? That means a little bit more of those 18 to 34s and a little bit less seniors. And that's really the biggest difference is just that flip there between 18 to 34 year old voters. and those senior voters, especially compared to an odd year election when you look at those 23 and 25 numbers. The other thing that you do see a little bit more in a presidential or midterm election is you typically see those unaffiliated numbers go up. You can see that in 2024, but it wasn't as large as 2022. And so we're anticipating being in there at that 45, 46 percent mark for those unaffiliated voters. And so just so that we have kind of an idea of who we expect to turn out, what these numbers are weighted on, as we go through here, even though we had such a lower response rate, as we go through here, I'll kind of touch on some of those subgroups and just wanted to give you an explanation. So again, we conducted the survey from May 12th to May 25th. We were able to interview 135 registered voters within the town of Frayser. And we really did as best as we can to interview as many of these. And I know we've talked to Sarah and we pressed it out through social media, through the website. We tried to get as much responses as possible. And unfortunately, we did come up just short, just shy of that 150 mark that we were looking to complete, with 135 of those being completed among registered voters. That did give us a margin of error of 7.86% at the 95% confidence level. And again, this survey is weighted on those turnout demographics. for what we'd expect that midterm election to look like. So just some key takeaways and opportunities. Again, this is among 135 people and has a 7.8, almost 8% margin of error, but there is still good information and good ideas to look through these survey results. First and foremost, Home Rule does show a majority support right at 51% of voters saying that they would support creating that Home Rule Charter Commission. And after they were informed of what that exactly means, that number increased to 57%. Well, undecided voters declined from 24 to 17. And I'll dive deeper into those numbers here in just a minute. As the town enters that kind of home rule discussion, you have that relative strength, but there is some concerns about growth, transparency, and some of those developments and kind of overdevelopment aspect is coming through here as well. And then last but not least here on these key findings is the most persuasive messaging really centered around local control, voter protections, and resident involvement. And so they felt like if the town of Fraser moves forward with a home rule charter commission, that it gives the town more flexibility to create those policies tailored, excuse me, specifically for Fraser's needs. So let's jump into some of these numbers. Just first and foremost, since the town of Frayser would be the ones that would be asking this question and creating that home rule from statutory rule form of government, we want to know just approval of the town of Frayser and the job that you all are doing providing those public services projects and programs for town residents. You do have a good response, a good approval rating among these respondents. 66% saying they approve, only just over a quarter, 27% saying they disapprove. And you can see that there by voter subgroup on the right. Excuse me. I will say among these voter subgroups, your margin of error is going to be a little bit higher, closer to 10%. But it is important to kind of see how they break down as you go through these. How much do you trust the town of Fraser government to generally do the right thing for residents? 9% said a great deal of trust and 54% said a fair amount. 27% just over a quarter again said no trust at all. And this is very kind of typical of what we see for any sort of town government, especially right now in the environment that we are in. And so no big surprises here by these numbers. Among those that do not trust, that 27% that do not trust the town of Fraser government, mainly it came down to a perception that there's just too much influence from developers and those that are involved with the growth of the town. There's a perception that there's a lack of transparency and accountability there. that they don't feel like you're listening to the residents as well as you could be. And there's that perception there. And then just concerns about housing, infrastructure, community priorities as the town moves forward. How familiar are you with a home rule as a form of local government? And again, we always want to ask this because, as we all know, a lot of people aren't familiar with statutory rule or home rule forms of government. So we always kind of just want to get a feel of where people stand on familiarity with home rule itself. And 38% of these respondents said that they had either a very or somewhat familiar thought process of what home rule government is. However, 34% said that they were not familiar at all with another quarter, just saying that they were not too familiar. Based on your current knowledge of what home rule is, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of home rule for government? 39% have a favorable, 19% have an unfavorable opinion, and 42% were unsure. Again, this is not too surprising. Anytime we do a home rule survey for any type of municipality, you do see that unsure numbers kind of be a little bit higher as people are just not as aware of what home rule actually is. And then what that actually looks like and turns into. But you can see some differences spark here. And I just kind of want to point these out again. The margin of error is quite a bit higher, but you can see some differences there between men and women. And you can also see those differences there among age group where you just have some higher unsure numbers, as well as the seniors, 65 and older, 36 percent saying that they have an unfavorable opinion of a home rule form of government. So this is the uninformed, what we call the uninformed home rule ballot test. And really, this does kind of two things. It educates voters on what home rule is and what that looks like. And it also educates voters on the fact that you would be creating that charter commission among those local residents that would be elected by voters to draft that proposed home rule charter. And so there's kind of those two pieces to it. And then we're asking them if they would vote yes and approve the formation of that Home Rule Charter Commission, or if they would vote no and reject it. Among this question, it starts off at, again, 51% saying that they would vote yes and approve the creation of that Home Rule Charter Commission, a quarter saying that they would vote no and reject that ballot measure, and another 24% saying that they're undecided. And there's some key aspects here that I want to point out again among these subgroups. You can see that difference there among gender. There's quite a bit of difference of that gender gap, 15 points, with men being below that 50% threshold at 44%. And then you can really see that difference there among age group, where that younger demographic is more supportive of a home rule form of government versus those older demographics, especially those seniors that are statistically tied on the yes, no, no. version. The other subgroup that I really want to point out here is those unaffiliated voters, 40% saying that they would vote yes and approve the ballot measure. And again, I want to point that out due to the fact that they're going to make up at least 45% of turnout this November. So it's important to keep an eye on those unaffiliated voters. And then last but not least, I did include in here those that completed the survey through the text message that was the invitation from our voter file sample that we randomly drew and sent that text message to them, inviting them to participate in the survey versus those that took it on social media. And so 88 out of the 135 took it through the text message and the remaining took it through the remaining other than six. We had six take it from the website, but the remaining took it through social media. We did ask them some information questions, and what do I mean by that? I'm really giving them more information of what a home rule government really allows the town to do, what it looks like, how it's created, who's creating that charter, and just details of what that actually allows the town of Fraser to do. And so really, the top two messages here, and again, we asked them to read these messages and then ask them if that information makes them more or less likely to vote. to again approve that town of Frayser creates that home rule commission, a charter commission. And so first and foremost, this top message here at 67% saying that they'd be more likely is just understanding and knowledge of that Frayser residents are who would rewrite that proposed town charter similar to a town constitution and that voters in Frayser would actually have the final say by voting to approve it or reject it at an election. And so that was by far the first top information question that was given to them. Secondly, you can see there that it just talks about how Fraser residents would have more control to create their own local rules and policies rather than that one size fits all system set by the state. The next two messages, again, we always add this in a home rule survey due to the fact that a lot of people, when they think that you're going home rule, allows you to not ask voters for approval of any sort of tax increase. And so we explained to them that even under a home rule form of government, TABOR is still a thing, and that requires Frazier voters to approve of any sort of future tax increases. That's the third ranked message here. And then just talking about how it's usually typically a diverse group of members to ensure that all voices and opinions are represented when drafting that town charter. That's sitting at 59%, the fourth message that was tested. And then last but not least, we had these other three messages that more than 90% of Colorado residents live in a home rural community. 59% said that that made them more likely to support it. And then these bottom two were not necessarily bad messages. They just had a higher no difference number. And so if approved, a home rural charter commission would have that 180 days to draft the new charter. 39% said that they would be more likely to approve, but another 28% said that that had no difference in their opinion. And then last but not least, just the concern that switching to home rule is that it would require additional staff time and increased costs for the town to create and implement any new to implement the new charter. Excuse me. 30 percent said that they would be more likely to approve it. And actually, 30 percent also said that they would be more likely to reject it. And 24 percent said that they would have no difference in opinion. So after they read those seven messages of really what that would look like, what that opportunity gives, we asked them again, now that they've read that information about what a Home Rule Charter Commission would do and how it would be formed if the election was held today, would you vote yes and approve it or vote no and reject it? And you can see it did jump there to 57% saying that they would vote yes and approve it, 26% saying no and reject it. and 17% being undecided. And you can see some key subgroups again moving from that below 50% mark to at least at that 50% mark. Mainly men jumping from 44% to 51%, so about a seven point difference there. Those seniors jumped from 37% to 50%, so a 13 point increase there. And then unaffiliated voters jumped from, excuse me, 40 percent to 56 percent. And even really Republicans, I want to point out here because they actually went down slightly. But unfortunately, it's just a very small number in the amount of Republicans that we had. But I did want to point that out because you can see that 54 percent now reject among Republicans. And then last but not least, among those that took it through the text message, they started at 51 and jumped to 57. And those that took it through social media started at 59 percent, a little bit higher. And that makes sense. They're more active. They're following your Facebook page and see everything that's going on. But they started at 59 percent and jumped to 72. So about a 13 point increase there as well. Among those that said that they'd vote yes and approve it, among those 57%, a lot of them talked about just having more local control, community self-governance. That makes sense. That's a top theme that we see in a lot of home rule surveys that we do. And then residents having a greater voice and representation. They feel like if you are a home rule form of government, that they will have more ownership in community decisions and be able to have more input. And then third, here on the list, the ability to better address growth, development, and community challenges by having that own charter and creating that for future planning. Among those that said that they vote no and reject it, that 26%. Just talking about concerns about more government, higher costs, additional bureaucracy, everything that comes with that and just some of that antitrust, distrust in town leadership, the fear of developer influence in creating that charter that did come through in these verbatim responses. And then just they felt that there was too much power concentrated in a smaller group of people. whether that be a smaller number of elected officials or those residents that are creating the charter. And then again, this just shows those overall numbers from the uninformed to the informed, gaining those six points in support of that yes approve, and it mainly coming from the undecided side. We did ask a couple questions, follow up questions on a potential lodging tax and just where that would put voters opinion at and explain to them that if Fraser becomes a home rural town, it could potentially ask voters to approve different types of local taxes, one being a lodging tax on short term rentals or hotel stays. And knowing that. would you support or approve it? And so really it was just, would you support or oppose the town of Frayser asking voters to approve a Frayser lodging tax? 66% said that they'd support almost a third of that, 32% saying that they would strongly support it, 25% saying that they would oppose that and 9% being unsure. And again, you can see some of those differences there by subgroup, really different among those genders, that gender gap. But you can see that increase in 63% among those seniors. We did ask a follow-up question to that of if the town of Fraser were to consider that lodging tax, how would each of the following potential uses of funding impact your likelihood to support or oppose that tax? So for each of these, we asked them, would they be more likely to support the lodging tax or less likely to support the lodging tax? And so you can see if the funding were to go towards trails, parks, and open space, 71% would be more likely to support it. Just shy of that, 69% saying that they would be more likely to support it for public transit. And then just shy of that, even statistically tied with the margin of error, 63% saying that they would be more likely to support it if the funding went to affordable housing. Then there is a little bit of drop here for child care, but it is over 50%. And then it's statistically tied on more likely versus less likely or more likely to oppose if the funding was to go towards tourism marketing. Then the last few slides here are just based off of demographics that match, again, what we expect that turnout to look like in November. And so I'll let you all look through here, but I'll open it up to any questions that you may have for me.

A lot of good information. I don't have any questions.

So if we decided we were going to move forward and we've got this survey, what do we have to do to get the word out? And what kind of a marketing campaign do we need to start? And how much does that cost?

Is that these guys or that's in-house? Now we're talking in-house questions, right?

Well, not necessarily. I don't know.

Just, yeah, how are we, if we decide we want to do this, what's involved in getting the word out so that we can market this? And how do we do that?

So we can recap that. Before we jump into that, are there any questions about the survey or the survey results for Courtney? And then we can have a broader discussion about if this is something we want to move forward with. Thank you.

With the lived at current address, was that stated like that? Or was it like, how long have you lived in Fraser or how long have you lived in Grant County?

It was how long have you lived at your current address?

Okay. So I would be in that last category, even though I've been up here for that second category. Because I've moved once. That's fine. I'm curious.

Okay. Three years ago.

All right. That's very useful.

Thank you. Yes. Thanks, Courtney.

Yeah.

Thank you, Courtney.

No problem. Thanks.

Well, I guess I do have a question. So based on these results, what would you recommend or advise the board to do?

That's a great question. It is hard. It is hard when you have 135 interviews because it puts you at that 7%, almost 8% margin of error. And you are sitting right on the bubble. I will say just knowing the demographics of what we expect turnout to be this year and the fact that that younger demographic is more supportive of home rule, you do have a better chance of getting it passed this year. versus waiting until next year. And then it goes to a different ballgame in 28 where we're at the next presidential and that younger demographic goes back up. But I do think you have a better chance. The nice thing also with the size of the town of Fraser, again, we're – let me jump to that – We're expecting roughly 500 to 600 voters to turn out this election. We have a pretty good idea of who those voters are. And so it allows you to kind of create that budget to really persuade and educate. And to be honest with you, so much of it with Home Rule is the education aspect of it. You don't necessarily have to persuade them. It's just really educating them on what it is and how it benefits the community.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

Thank you.

Great. So we can kind of briefly recap what the process would look like. I did also want to introduce Linda Michal. Linda, did I pronounce your name correctly? We have been talking with Linda. She was one of the attorneys that was originally recommended to us by Michael Penny. She's worked closely with Castle Pines to work with potentially a special counsel for the home rule process. So we have invited her to be here this evening to help answer any questions that make him up. But Linda, if you want to introduce yourself and then I can kind of walk through the process and you can jump in as needed and correct me when I misspeak.

Sure. Well, it's nice to see you all. Sorry, I'm not there in person. I can barely make out your faces, but I am Linda Michaud. I have a nine person law firm in the Denver Tech Center. I've been practicing municipal law for 30 years, a long time. And I primarily have represented Home Rule communities, although I did represent the city of Leadville as a statutory city for 20 plus years. Most recently, I did work with the city of Castle Pines and moving that to a Home Rule governance structure. That was in 2019 with Michael Penny as the city manager. And that was a really successful process. Currently, I'm also working with a couple other clients on charter amendments. So happy to answer any questions. If I can't answer them tonight, I'm happy to provide Sarah with follow-up answers as well.

So Peggy, to go to your question, if the board wanted to move forward with this on June 17th, the next board meeting, we would have an ordinance that would initiate the process to basically put it to the voters for whether they wanted to form a home rule charter commission. So we would work with Linda on that ordinance. We would also bring forth a proposal to work with Linda as our special counsel for the board to approve at that time. After that, there are a number of steps. We have to publish the ordinance. There's a call for election. Then there's a publication of the election notice. And then petitions would become available. For the size of Frasier, we would need nine charter commission members. So there would be 30 days that would come about roughly at the end of July, where people that were interested in serving on the Charter Commission would need to go out and get signatures. So they need 25 signatures that they would deliver to Antoinette to put them on the ballot. And then there would be kind of two sets of questions on the ballot. One would be, do you wish to form a Charter Commission for the Town of Fraser? And then you would vote on the different Charter Commission members. Jump in if I miss say anything, Linda or Antoinette. Assuming the voters decide to move forward with this, with the charter commission would form, they have to meet within a certain time after that first election, and then they have six months to write a charter. So staff would work with them. We would have Linda hopefully at our side, helping to guide that process and make sure we have a solid charter. And then that charter would go back to the public. So there'd be kind of a public hearing to discuss the charter and we could, we would have the option to either do a special election sometime, anytime, really. As long as once they complete that charter or we could put it on next year's November ballot. So it really is kind of a question of, I guess, efficiency versus cost. If we want to wait to November, try to do it sooner. And then the public would vote on whether or not to adopt the charter. If they don't adopt the charter, I believe it goes back to the commission and they have another chance and then a revised version goes back to the public to vote. I think a few considerations. I think the survey results show that there is a pathway to success, that this is something the board wants to do, but it's not a slam dunk. So it would be a lot of education over the summer and getting information out. I think your average citizen is not familiar with Home Rule. The 135 ish folks that took the survey, hopefully have a little bit better of an understanding. So it could be a big education campaign. And I think the other crucial piece would really be the board helping to identify charter commission members and encouraging people that you think would be a good fit for the role to run for the position. Okay. It is a small community, so there's only so many people in that pool. It's not a super long commitment, but it's a pretty time-heavy commitment for those individuals when that charter is being written.

So is there a template for charters? Or do we just start out from scratch?

So what Castle Pines did, as I understand it, Michael Penny gave the charter commission, Colorado Municipal League does kind of have a template, so to speak. And so he worked with that as well as kind of other communities charters. And he is the staff kind of that was taking the lead at Castle Pines would draft sections of the charter. And at each meeting would provide the members kind of CML's recommendations, some other charters, and then the draft and the commission would discuss that. He will also tell you the only thing worse than being a statutory community is a poorly written home charter. But then he tells you it's not rocket science if it's not that heavy of a lift. So I think there are models out there that can be used. It will be staff time, though. I mean, I think that's one of the biggest considerations. Is it business? What the board wants to prioritize time and resources going to right now? Yeah.

So Sarah, can you coin for me just a case of need? Why are we embarking on this and what challenges or problems does it solve for us? I mean, it seems like an effort to just do.

It is an effort. I think it's a doable effort. I think it's a long-term kind of investment. I have not found too many people that think it's better to be statutory than home rule. So I think it's more a question of if Frasier wants to put forth this effort now. One of the questions that has come up is around lodging tax. Currently the county collect the 2% lodging tax and we get what we get from the county that comes back to the community of Frasier. So we could potentially have our own lodging tax that would the plant the county's lodging tax that does have to go to the voters um but it does give us greater flexibility in terms of what we can bring forward to the voters per taver in regards to taxes so one example i think it was the community of dylan linda actually kind of has an excise tax on short-term rentals so that is a lot basically a lodging tax on short-term rentals that is not equally applied to hotels so that's an example of that kind of taxation flexibility. So there is a chance to have greater revenue sources, again, with voter approval. I think an example that we have run into was when we were looking to attract more commercial development. And developers right now really want to develop residential properties that they know they can sell and make profit on. They're less eager to develop commercial properties. And based on the statutes, we were limited in what we could offer a commercial developer. We, I think, came up with some pretty good packages for the businesses themselves, but in terms of creating that commercial space, it was more limited. And so that's another area where we might have greater flexibility. Linda, would you like to add any examples you've seen or just areas in general where you see a benefit in Home Rule?

Yeah, I mean, I think that the, is this from the CML? Is this a CML publication you have on the screen? Yeah. I mean, I do think, you know, as a statutory town, you all know, I mean, you only possess those powers that are granted to you by the General Assembly. So every legal question that comes up, we're bound by looking in state law for those answers. And a lot of times there's no answer. There's no true authority granted to statutory communities. So there is a lot more flexibility. You can be more nimble. You can create different and organizational structures. I think in the area of finance and taxation and just general economics, you will have greater flexibility and authority to sort of craft your own revenue streams and uses of those revenue streams. Also procedurally, I think you can save the town. It's more efficient to be Home Rule in terms of ordinance publication requirements. You can post more things on a website versus what's required under state law. There's just a lot of different opportunities, I think, for Home Rule communities. And I haven't worked with a Home Rule community that regrets having a Home Rule charter.

So some things that could help promote things like transparency is, I believe the town of Winter Park has a two reading rule for their ordinances. Absolutely, yep.

Requiring public hearings, for example, on second reading or first reading of all ordinances. You can create more transparency. Eminent domain, that's sort of a hot topic for some communities. You can require a super majority vote of the town board to... authorize eminent domain or condemnation of private property. So it can be a document of limitation. I would argue against making it extremely limited, but it does allow for more transparency.

It's almost like we're just going to do it so we can tax people. We can just add more taxes to everybody's tax, is what it sounds like. More opportunity, more revenue stream, more...

So the two ways that I would explain to that point, and one thing that I just want to note from the Magellan survey is that it did not say, are you in support of the lodging tax for Frayser if it replaces the county's lodging tax? It did not say that at all. It said, would you be supportive of the town of Frayser applying a lodging tax? So, you know, it could have been interpreted as adding to the current county's 2%, but not say replacing. And you had strong voter support in that survey for just Frazier adding a lodging tax, but essentially a lot of the work that we've been researching on this is once you look to adopt that lodging tax, it would replace that existing lodging tax by the county. So for all short-term rentals and hotels, anything that falls into that less than 30-day stay, Uh, that a lodging tax would apply to, um, in Frazier currently, you're paying 2% of the, the sales tax of that going to the county. Um, somewhere in the ballpark and my estimate is about 300 to 350,000 dollars a year right now. Um, you will have more development of hotels and things of that nature. Um, so that will increase that revenue stream will increase right now that it's going to the county for directed initiatives. And Frazier is getting back. A fairly small portion of that about lodging tax.

Okay. Real estate transfer taxes. We can't do that. No, but we'll do it when we, I mean, when we get it to be a home rule.

No, it needs to be changed to a level where we can park.

Does it want to park? It's a crack.

Okay. Yeah. The real thing. Right.

to the town of Winnipeg.

Another example, and Linda, please correct me if I'm misguided here, but something else that you can look at is you currently have about 300 short-term rentals right now in Frayser. If you started seeing that getting out of control and you had a priority within the residents and the board of Frayser, to look at trying to curb that a little bit. You could look at an excise tax to increase that tax on short-term rentals, and those impacts go towards affordable housing initiatives and childcare initiatives versus, it allows you to kind of curb some of the behaviors that you just don't want. through things like that. So the state of Colorado does not currently have a specific tax on short-term rentals, but you could apply, you could create an excise tax if you want to promote things like hotel developments and you feel like you do need to curb some things related to short-term rentals, you could look at an excise tax to try to curb that behavior.

Does that make sense?

You can limit it. There's different things that Steamboat has done in the last couple years as far as limiting in different zoning districts, but there's a variety of ways that you can approach that.

Couldn't we negotiate with the county to get more of that money back? Wouldn't that be an easier way to

Dave Kuntz, we've had preliminary conversations about a reimbursement agreement with the county but it's just falling flat, I mean, ultimately, is going to be based on the personalities and the board of county Commissioners any any time for that type of consensus. Dave Kuntz, So, even if you had agreement that could change the future so.

Oh good. Dave Kuntz, um. I lost my train of thought. So even if we were home rule and we wanted to make a change like that, we would still have to take it to the voters.

Absolutely.

So what's the difference between that and maybe increasing the mill levy to generate additional revenue? It's kind of the same.

The primary language for like, if you are maintaining a 2% lodging tax in Frayser, I mean, you can say without raising taxes. I mean, we'd have to work with our attorneys as far as that bout language, but you're not raising taxes if you adopt a 2% lodging tax that essentially replaces the county's lodging tax. And then you would be able to bring that revenue stream to the town, which per state statute, 10% can go towards marketing initiatives, and the remaining 90% can go towards things like affordable housing, childcare, public transportation.

transportation is big we're so short on that for transportation well the number one was open space and trails right is coming up zero because of transportation right right true I have a question. You mentioned asking if we could renegotiate with the county and you mentioned the reimbursement agreement. Now, it seems like a few meetings ago, I heard mentioned that we're already talking to the chamber about making them whole if we were to go down this path. Dave Kuntz, So if we're going to negotiate out all our advantages, why, I mean, are we going to negotiate with the county to reimburse them I trying to figure out the dynamics here that if we do this, and then we give up.

our advantages here or there or not all like i'm trying to figure out what's going on to be honest yeah so i mean i think there's a reason it looks like she's going to talk peggy you've been part of these conversations it sounds like the county's concern or estimate of as far as contributions to the frasier winter park chamber of commerce is about 50 000 a year from frasier

That's this year. In the past, it's been 100. And they cut back this year because of that new law with the 90%. So they are now funding other things besides marketing, which for years, 100% went to marketing. So when that changed, then the whole power dynamic changed as well. Mm-hmm.

So you're still required by state statute that at a minimum, you can state this however you want to, as far as how you approve the ordinance for the ballot initiative, but it can be more than 10% that can go towards marketing. You can state that in the ballot initiative, otherwise you just appropriate those funds towards, Just because you have it to 10% does not mean that you can't appropriate outside of that 10% towards marketing initiatives and things like that.

I guess what I'm saying is if the impetus of this is to have greater income streams and have control over those that we're negotiating to make the other entities that we're leaving behind whole, then what is the point of doing, you know?

Well, I think, I mean, I would just recommend it's acknowledging the benefit of the Fraser Winter Park Chamber of Commerce and how they do promote the local business community.

Does it end with your chamber? Are there other entities that we need to make whole?

I don't think so. But I think the Chamber's always got enough money for marketing and they use their marketing budgets about $400,000 a year. And that goes to a national big Denver marketing firm. So it's for national marketing, not regional. And, you know, I just wanted everybody to be aware that, you know, this is kind of in play what's happening with the Chamber and the county and And then we have to add on to this, you have a really bad snow year and everybody in the whole state is looking at 90% of new revenue going to housing and daycare and transit and 10% going just to marketing. And how are we going to get people to come back?

And I'm not arguing against the chamber. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Thinking if we're trying to control our money or negotiating.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, But then what are we really doing PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I think the bottom line is like we're giving out $350,000 a year of lodging tax to the county and they are sure that contributing 50,000 back to the chamber, but they're not, we're not getting the remaining balance. So it's more money that we can decide what to do with.

It's really the VOCC dictating the use of those funds versus the town appraiser dictating the use of those funds. So that's simply as it gets.

So we're going to have a huge increase with this new hotel, which, so it could double the revenues. So that's another piece. Right.

So some communities have also said that when they started collecting their own sales tax, which is an option under home rule, and they started doing their own audits with sales tax without even raising tax revenues, they got more tax revenues because they found sales tax that wasn't coming to them. It was going somewhere else or wasn't being paid versus relying on a state audit. I don't know if that would be the case for Frasier, and that would require us to self-collect, which would have some upfront cost. So there is that possibility. I think in addition to the possibility for taxes, if approved by the voters, is really as I've looked at this and tried to decide, I think it makes sense for Frazier right now. It's just kind of long term having that flexibility and that flexibility. ability to respond to things perhaps more efficiently and creatively, because we're not looking at what the state statutes say we have the powers to do. But if we have a well-written charter, then we just have the ability to do those things if they don't contradict state laws and if they are considered matters of local versus state concern. All right. There are some expenses up front. So we do want to acknowledge those, you know, legal fees for this process could be anywhere between 15 and 32,000 if the voters approve it and we move through a charter, kind of depending on how involved legal is in the crafting of that charter. If we wanted to feed our charter commission, you know, that would be an expense. There is some expense with the elections themselves. It's much less if we go with the county coordinated election. But we could be looking at anywhere based on just rough estimates, I would say between 15 and the upward and 50,000 when it's all said and done, you know, for maximizing legal assistance and feeding a charter commission and all of that fun stuff.

But what about I'm concerned about the marketing of this thing and we just can't as a group decide what we're going to do this and it appears on the ballot because we got to get out there and really educate people. And that's probably not just staff.

And that is a good point, Peggy, and a cost that I did not mention. We previously talked with Slate back when we first contracted with Magellan, and Slate and Magellan have worked closely together. So we could work with Slate to put out an informational campaign. And again, depending on how much they did versus how much Sarah Wick and staff did would kind of determine that cost. But I think it would be crucial that we invest in that. if we want it to be successful.

So would this be something like the DDA where we can educate, but we can't campaign for?

Correct. Yes.

So the board members, if we had a good fact sheet, something like that, we could all go out and beat the bush and talk to people in our neighborhood and answer their questions and give them something to refer to.

Yeah, and Linda, please correct me if I misstate anything here. My understanding is quite similar to the GDA campaign. You personally are allowed to have views. I think the board can even pass a resolution in favor. But generally, in terms of information that the town is putting out on behalf of the town, we'd have to have pros and cons. And it has to be informational versus vote for home for all. Right.

Correct. You can't urge voters in favor or against any sort of ballot issue or question.

Okay.

but you as an individual could.

Absolutely, yeah.

Yeah, so you can't say after the ordinance is published, the town thinks that this is the right thing to do because of X, Y, and Z. But you can say that Katie Soles believes that this is the right move because of X, Y, and Z. Is that fairly accurate, Linda?

Yes, yeah. And then, you know, it... If and when I charter commission is established those Commissioners then become really your mouthpieces to to help campaign on behalf of the Charter. Once one is drafted so just in terms of thinking about who you might encourage to run for the Charter Commission. They can also be really. Good proponents cheerleaders.

As far as those that candidate list, um, you, you said they have to have a petition with 25 signatures. Are there any restrictions on. The citizenry for, like, number of petitions they can sign. I think there is. Yeah, because I, I'm starting to think signatures, so it's quite a bit for this little town.

So it would be like a general election. There's nine commissioners that are appointed, so you can only sign nine petitions that need 25 signatures each. So if you signed a 10th petition, it wouldn't count because you've now signed more petitions than there are seats available.

Okay, okay. Thank you.

And if there are not enough people that run to be on the Charter Commission, then the board would appoint the remaining numbers. But we do need to have nine.

So you'd have to have 200 signatures roughly?

25. Each petition, each person for the Charter Commission needs 25 valid signatures for their petition to be valid.

But that same person could be signed on all nine of them?

And that would be a second election to vote the commission or is that?

No, the first election, the voters will vote on whether or not to form a charter commission. And then on that same ballot, there will be language, something to be effective if a charter commission is formed and you would vote for the commission members.

Okay. So we could put it out together in November.

Yeah.

So I want to know without Monaco and staff changes, Can you guys handle this? I mean, you're wonder people, you're fabulous staff, but this is a big, this should be a big load for y'all.

And yeah, I do think it will be a lot of work to do, but if it's what the board really wants to do, then the staff will, will do it now in the long run.

Will it make your job easier? Antoinette or harder or wash?

Um, I'll be honest with you. I'm not entirely clear if it will make my job hard to get to that point will be a lot of work. Yeah, I do believe that because then once you've written your charter and the town approves it. There might be additional steps needed after that that you might look at some portions of your code that might need to be updated. So we think it is a long process specifically for the clerk's position. What is it exactly going to change? I don't know. I'll be quite honest. There are some things within the election that can change within a charter, but they're all things that I've never dealt with as the town clerk. So what does that make different? I don't really know. I'll be quite honest.

And it sounds like there's things like noticing ordinances. And so depending on how the charter was written, that could work either way. But to answer your question, Katie, I mean, I would say we're prepared to do this, but just recognizing that it will take time and resources. So if this is the priority, like this is what we work on, and it just has to balance out with other projects and stuff that's going on. Okay, so the campaign, I think if we want to do it well, we probably need to throw a little money at it and have slight help and help get that information out there over the summertime. I think it's crucial that the board is working to kind of recruit and encourage charter commission members. And then the lift of the charter itself, the commission has to meet within a certain time period after that election. 30 days, I think, was it? 20. But then they have six months. So I imagine that that chunk of work would largely, most of that would probably happen beginning in January. I mean, just realistically with a November election and hitting the holidays and imagining of people traveling and a new board.

So you mentioned that the election or the process would be about $50,000. Antoinette just said something there.

At the high end.

At the high end.

Yeah, yeah.

But we'll leave it there or under. The work that comes subsequent. I'm just trying to get my hands or my head around that phrase. It could be an enormous amount of work. Or do you, does guidance have, or do we have an idea what the follow-up is or a follow-up budget, you know, for code updates or whatever is entailed after the charter becomes? Is that a, quarter million dollar exercise the next year or and I realize that's kind of like asking what a car costs. It can be 200 bucks. It can be 200,000. But, you know.

Yeah. And I will say the one city manager who did not sing the praises of Home Rule was the city manager in Monument. She became the city manager after the charter was adopted and has said that it has been a lot of work to just do the code updates and do that implementation. I think they'd had a ballot measure for a tax that did not pass. So they didn't have increased revenues, but kind of had these expenses of implementing. When I've talked to other communities, they thought the numbers, they had not had that same experience. They had not felt that it was that much work to implement the charter and update their code where they needed to. I don't know, Linda, if you have any experience with this and what that's looked like in the communities.

I suspect that town needed to do that work anyway.

I mean, I think it's an opportunity, right, to update the code. But again, it takes some time and resources to do.

Well, if you have to hire additional staff, then that's going to be an additional expense for the town. I'm just wondering, is there a size of the town that makes sense? Or maybe put another way, if the town tree is... Although a certain population. Does it make sense to go ahead and roll? Because I don't know if we have. The critical mass to make it worthwhile. We're to spend 50,000 dollars. There's no guarantee it's going to pass. There's going to be a lot of work for the town and then.

know is it worth it i don't know i would say you know something to consider is ninety percent of municipalities in colorado are home rule so that's every size of municipality so i think that's i don't think the size dictates a slight a slight correction to that ninety percent of colorado's population lives out that's what i as how i understand that is that

I think that's a fair question, Louis. I don't know if I know the answer. I mean, I've thought about that as well. I think we can try to keep things to certain budget ranges. I mean, it's going to take staff time, right? Admittedly, probably myself and Antoinette and a new town manager in terms of that effort. So I think timing's a fair question. When I've talked to folks, I feel like, again, with that exception in Monument, across the board, municipalities are supportive of home rule. And as Linda said, don't regret going home rule.

I would just say just from my interactions, observations and updates to the code over the last nine years, the town of Frazier's municipal code very much does reflect the state statutes. So as far as updates from a home rule charter, I mean, depending on what the charter says, but some of these code updates would be more specialized as far as like the benefits of home rule, implementing that into the code. i don't see a lot of code changes that would be you know very nuanced um but you know linda maybe that's something that you have some insight on as far as our types of communities yeah i haven't had very aggressive code changes um very much highlighting or emphasizing existing state statutes yeah and i would say in um

Castle Pines, you know, following the charter election and the passage of the Home Rule Charter, we did spend some time, you know, sort of auditing the municipal code. But if your code is contemporary and has kept up with various state law changes, I do think the code changes would be targeted. And I think a lot of that might come in your zoning or subdivision regulations, your land use provisions, and then maybe in your initial chapters. I know Centennial when they went home rule years ago, a lot of things they kept the status quo in terms of the structure rather than changing whole cloth, everything. So I would say it's more targeted. I couldn't give you an estimate of time or resources.

And I would just commend, you know, staff between planning, our clerk's office, Public Works, and Sarah, just a lot of code updates have been with the nuances of state code. So as far as like looking at the updates to keep track of. You know, um, you know, Alan and Garrett. They provided some updates to just reflect things like, you know, turf and. And those different requirements, I mean, those, those are, we, we've. Staffs on a good job, I think, as far as keeping the contemporary nuances of the state statute. So. You know, if you have things like term limits, you'll have to, you know, codify that into the code. We don't currently have term limits. I don't necessarily see that as something that's going to happen here given our smaller population, but that's just an example. So I would agree that Linda is likely going to be more targeted as far as section of the code that you are updating.

And Michael, you mentioned the turf ordinance. That was already in my head as an example. So that is a mandate from the state coming down and that applies to only statutory towns. So if we were home rule, that mandate would not have applied to us.

You have to look at some of them, some of updates for state statutes, usually particular to zoning and land use regulations. home rule does not have the ability to trump a lot of the land use updates to the the codal legislator legislation um but a lot of those things would just be nuanced and you know you have the ability to be more limited in a lot of the areas of the code above what the state does but um it just it has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis sometimes okay okay if i could jump in on i just want to jump in on that one i'm not aware that it wouldn't apply

In terms of statutory or homework, I'm pretty sure. Most of our recent ones apply across the board, but that would come across regardless. Yeah.