Board of Trustees - Regular Meeting

I got your voicemail and that I'll, I'll, I'll mention it.

Yep. Okay. All right, we are back from executive session and dinner. Um, just so the public knows, um, in the executive session, we discussed the 1st round of interviews, um, that we had narrowed down and we have decided on 3 town manager candidates. The public will get a chance to ask questions of those candidates, likely the first week in the second, well, the seventh, I guess, of July. That's yet to be fully decided. But anyway, so the public will have a chance to meet the three candidates, and then they'll move forward with staff interviews and the board interviews the following day. Okay. All right. Moving through the agenda. All right. So we are looking at approval of the agenda. I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the agenda with one change where we move. It's E conservation easement survey results. Is that right? Moving. We did that before the executive session. Who's had it twice? yeah yeah i've done it twice in the past but all right so um i'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda moving e conservation easement survey results down to the bottom um where i is currently shifting everything else up make a motion to approve the agenda based on challenges second any further discussion all in favor aye opposed Okay. I have a motion to approve the consent agenda, which includes the minutes for June 3rd, 2026.

So moved. Second.

Any further discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. We are now moving on to open forum. This is for business not on the agenda. So if you'd like to approach the podium, you can have three minutes of time, or if you're online, you can raise your hand.

Are you logged in?

No.

Okay. Okay.

Anybody online?

Nobody online for open forum.

Okay. It's a long agenda, so we'll keep it moving. Discussion?

No.

Discussion possible action regarding the Treasurer's Report, Lori? Okay.

Good evening, mayor and trustees. How are you this evening?

You ready for this?

You're ready.

Well, let's start with the good news. Your general fund reserves and operating position changed to the positive. We were reimbursed for the interim loan number two. that was reimbursed to the town after receipt of the funding for St. Louis Landing that everybody had been working on diligently. So, and actually just this week, we paid for some construction costs straight out of those funds and everything went very smoothly and it was like, yay. We are right now preparing grant reimbursements We're waiting for the final invoice for the bike park because we want to get that submitted. And we'll also be continuing to utilize, you know, use up the St. Louis landing grants that were awarded to the town. So we'll be working on that and continuing on with St. Louis. Hello.

Oh, sorry.

Oops. There we go. And your fund balances, you know, are still pretty the same. Nothing major happening there at the time, except for we did get those funds returned. Okay, here's the not so happy news. The April sales tax was a total of $351,063. I'm sorry, that's a way old school mud season drop off. There's a few of us in the room that have been around when April would do that and just poof, there was nobody. Skyria closed early. Mary Jane was first to go down and then when the park held on as long as they could and they couldn't take it anymore. That amount is $192,900 lower than March 2026 sales tax. And April 2026 is $227,323 less than April 2025 was. That was a 40.7% lower than April 2025. not to be too discouraged. That puts us between January to April on average at about 20.09% down from the prior year. So when you average everything out between the months, we took a hit, but it wasn't

So, Lori, can you give me a ballpark idea of how much of our income actually comes in in those first three months? Is that generally 25% of our annual or 50% or?

It could be about.

I imagine that's it.

You're catching me without my. Yeah, I know. That's why I said ballpark.

But I'm imagining it's going to be distributed through the year.

January is always slow. February comes back because of President's Day. March, normally, we have a brilliant spring break and all kinds of things going on. April usually goes all the way through the month. So I would say about a quarter to maybe 35, 40, 30%, maybe at the highest.

So those four months are usually 30% of our annual income?

Around there, if they're good months. Unfortunately, this time... Not so good. Okay. So, yeah, there, yeah, that was a big drop off. I have seen more things come to life for May though. And we also had a wonderful bike park opening the last weekend in May. So hopefully we're getting some people coming into town and, you know, Hey, welcome to Frazier. Please spend money. Anyway, short-term rental revenue, this was disappointing also. Your short-term rental normally sticks around about 10% to 12% of your revenue. This month, it was only 6%. And you can see that little bitty orange line there on April. um that it was um twenty two thousand one hundred and ninety one dollars and seventy one cents as all we got for short-term rental and that was um April 2025 was $81,549. So that was another big hit. It was about 73.54% lower than April 2025. Remote sellers are kind of just hanging in there. They're doing their thing. I thought it was kind of odd and unique. The remote sellers were staying around 9%, which is about where they average. And it was only $40 lower than the year before. So that I found, you know, rather humorous, but those numbers. So people are still shopping bargains, still, you know, probably Amazon and some of the dog food and all the things that people like to order online online. I almost thought we'd see more of an uptick in short-term rental, but people are still doing their regular shopping, but they're also getting some of their stuff online also. Not a big jump. And then... The budget analysis right now, I'm sleeping better thanks to the loan repayment. We're still on target. Nothing is leaping out that it's gone to any kind of a max level that we're not being responsible that something emergency came up. Everything's going along smoothly. Right now, I'm working with the auditors because the Fraser Housing Authority down there at the bottom, We are creating the project fund for the Fraser Housing Authority. So there might be a little change to that, but those numbers haven't changed. Basically, I was just tracking the costs. The costs that you're looking at there are the current costs of what was paid by the town. This does not include any of the bond information that'll be coming up. And my new favorite challenge, because there's a lot to that. Anyway. So in this actual, that's part of what will be reimbursed to us. Actually, that actual is part of what was reimbursed. Okay. That was included into... I haven't. This would have been mostly the second interim loan because this is 2026 costs. So that has been reimbursed. Although we did have to kind of go further back. I mean, I went back a long ways to pick up enough to make sure that we got fully reimbursed. So, yeah, I hadn't had a chance in between learning how to do bond accounting and funding and sending that all up for the St. Louis Landing Project, including things like, you know, hey, rental income and for sale and resale. And wow, there's a lot I'm working on right now. So, yeah, that was part of what was refunded. Excuse me, reimbursed. Okay.

Any other questions? Sorry for the sort of bad news. Thank you.

To be expected, I think.

Yep.

Big summer coming our way. All right. Resolution 2026-0606, appointment of interim town manager. Are you presenting on this? No.

Antoinette McGee, the town clerk. So this is to appoint the interim town manager. As we all know, Michael Bragg has put his notice in as the town manager and his last day will be July 1st. So we want to make sure that we have that town manager position until it is filled. And we are the we are suggesting that we that um sarah catanzarite is um slotted into that position until it is filled um and the board of trustees finds and determines that is in the best interest of the public health safety and welfare of the residents of the town of fraser that an interim town manager be appointed to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the town manager pending completion of the search and appointment of a new town manager The board of trustees wishes to appoint Sarah Catanzarite, the current assistant town manager. Um, and therefore the board of trustees finds the foregoing recitals are incorporated into this resolution and findings and the board of trustee hereby appoints Sarah as the interim town manager to execute the duties of the town manager beginning July 2nd, 2026. And in continuing until such time, the manager is appointed or until further action by the board.

I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution number 2026-06-06.

I'll second it.

Any further discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Thank you. All right. Moving on to United Business Bank update approved signers. Lori.

What?

You're up.

I am?

Well, so is you.

Yeah, for the UBB updated signers.

United Business Bank signers.

We could just read the motion, I think.

We can just make the motion.

I think we all know what's going on here.

I'll be happy to read that.

It's all right. She's got it.

It's a motion, so you don't have to. Okay. I make a motion to update the signers at the United Bank, removing the town manager, Michael Brath, and adding the interim town manager, Sarah Catanzarite. All other current signers will remain on the count.

brian cervanek mayor pro tem peggy smith and town clerk antonin mcveigh finance director lorraine waters will retain access to the account but will not have signing ability second any further discussion all in favor aye any opposed okay moving right along resolution 2026-06-03 mandatory watering restrictions paul

Mayor, Board of Trustees, Paul Johnson, Board of Directors, President Frazier. Resolution 2026-0603 is the water restrictions we discussed previously that unfortunately I missed and didn't get it on the last agenda. So, considering that we're in stage 3 exceptional drought in the county, snowpack is Didn't quite make record lows, but it was close. We are looking to just be consistent with the other water providers in the Fraser Rett Valley. So Winter Park Ranch has no irrigation and is what they put out to their residents. We are looking to just match what Grand County number one is doing to allow people to continue to water just on a reduced schedule. So as we discussed beginning July 1st, 2026, town of Fraser customers may only water outdoors two days per week. They must follow a set schedule single family residential properties with addresses ending and even numbers may water on Sunday and Thursday. Single family residential properties with addresses ending in odd numbers may water on Saturday and Wednesday. And all other properties, multi family. areas and commercial Tuesdays and Fridays. Town of Fraser public parks will also be reducing watering to twice a week and all communal irrigated areas are being asked to reduce water usage by 20%. These water conservation measures are to conform to town code section 132110, which limits outside watering and irrigation between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Handheld watering by hose and watering canister is exempt from these provisions. Washing of cars, boats, campers, windows, and the legs shall be done only when the hose is equipped with the flow-restricting device such as a trigger nozzle. And outside watering may be prohibited within certain subdivisions pursuant to water decrees and or development approvals. Any additional questions that we haven't covered previously?

I have something I'd like to read. I'm a little disappointed in this effort, to be honest. I started this discussion after the ordinance in February. I met with Michael in April. We're not looking at July and this is all our conversations have produced. Our discussions included, but this effort did not codify our water rights. It has not included drought pricing and the watering schedule is disappointing for the reasons I'll get to. I would like the board to give clear direction to the manager or me that this, it could be that this isn't important to us and I'll back off. to include the above elements, triggers and restrictions, drought pricing, and bringing our water conservation ordinance into compliance with our water rights. In Frayser and Winter Park areas, the Colorado Water Conservation Board enforces and sets minimum stream flow targets ranging from 19 CFS in the winter to 30 CFS in the summer. They also set temperature standards. These are meant to maintain life and economy in our area. Today, the Fraser River was flowing at 13 CFS. That's less than half of our minimum flows.

Oh my God.

Okay, and Denver Water is allowed to do this. Our river depends on our conservation is my point here. This is a quote from Denver Water email that I received this morning. Denver Water is taking all the available water from the Fraser River and Upper Williamsport collection systems and is not expected to bypass any additional flows this year and required bypass flows remain at winter levels. We are going to, our fishing is going to be closed. Our temperatures are already exceeding 68 degrees. We need to do more. I believe beyond that, the Colorado River District makes recommendations to our water restrictions. They have our backs. They're the ones that manage, help manage the historic user pool and other pools that cover us. we should be following their guidance. We should not be following the example set by the Front Range entities. They're the ones that are drying up our rivers. They're the ones that are allowed to go below minimum flows and put us in this predicament. I think that we need to propose a paradigm change. Let's not let our water rights alone dictate our actions. This is how the front range behaves. This is how the lower basin states behave. And we need to be moving towards a supply side solution. Let's place restrictions and drought pricing based on actual water supply and stream flows. Maybe if the minimum flows and maximum temperatures that are set to maintain life and economy We follow this Colorado River District's recommendations. Maybe if we are below 50% on minimum flows, we don't water at all because that comes straight out of our river. This is our economy. This is life. This is important. We are at less than 50% of minimum flows. And we're allowing watering twice a week. And we aren't even regulating that to make sure that it's within our water rights.

This is wrong.

We need to be a leader. We need to do things differently. We need to set our restrictions by the flows in our river. That's what I have to say. I will support this tonight as a stopgap if we move forward with a drought plan of our own that does some of these things. Thank you.

Thank you, Adam. Yeah, it's serious.

It will affect our water supply next year if this maintains. Yeah. I have no control over that.

You done?

Yes, sir.

How are we gonna enforce this?

And what are the penalties? Code has very minimal penalties. This is drafted the way, the direction I was given by the board to not have drought pricing at this time. It was three meetings ago, maybe four. We're getting rain. Right now we are that's why I'm asking for Lucas is. You know, we've caught several businesses and even some residents watering outside of the hours that are required and they've all been notified. We are helping by notifying property owners with. Examples of their water scopes showing how much water they're actually using just due to the way billing is. It's and the tears are you don't see until you get into the thousands of gallons of consumption any. Rise in your water rates, but as of Lucas has not mentioned any. Lowering of any of our well capacities. We haven't seen any drop in well depths at this time, but it is only a matter of time.

I mean, I guess, yes, my concern is like 2nd, homeowners that just. Leave their sprinklers on. you know, every day or, you know, beyond that. And I mean, it's not here, so they're not monitoring it. And there's no way back to the water meter thing that people can check real time what their usage is, you know, if they're watering too much or they have a leak or.

So, I mean, that's, I would say that's where Lucas is every day notifying the big users. For example, the school was using a lot of water and we've notified them and trying to figure out what they're doing and why they're spending so much water. It sounds like they have a leak because we don't see that much water being used on the fields. But to Trustee Brooklyn's point, if the board would like to go a different direction or would like us to pursue something else, we can pursue that for a future board meeting.

So this is the elementary school? Yeah. schools out for summer grass that goes dormant.

That's why we notified them right away.

Can they just turn it off completely and not irrigate?

They could.

I mean, it's a big use. I think a big part of this too is educating the public. Those of us that are here and went to the water district meeting, it's very sobering. But a lot of people have no idea how dire this is. And even a sad picture of the Fraser River running Fairly as a creek.

We have put every notification that's come from the county and we push that out on social media. Sarah, you know, forward that on from the town. So we're trying the outreach as well.

So when we do, so the billing, there's no opportunity to communicate, is there? Yes. When the monthly bill, the quarterly billing that goes out? Yes, I can put notices in with the bills when they go out. I'm a little limited. But people still have to go in and open their account? Yes. Well, they have to read the billing. So when the emails go out, it pops up and any notices that I put are right there. Oh, gotcha. When you open that email, yes. I think we should put in a financial disincentive.

We can definitely do that. I also, I mean, this might be a bigger question, but we only get quarterly water bills, right?

You don't know until it's too late.

Right. That's what I'm saying. It's like, you know, if I got a monthly bill and I realized, oh, it's twice as much as it was, then I am more inclined to make a change, I think.

Okay.

I don't know. Like I said, that's probably bigger than this motion right now to switch to monthly billing.

Or as a part of it, that announcement to look up To just to add in that when people go to open their bill information about how we are in this stage three, almost stage four drought. And that the Fraser River is running 50% of its minimum flow.

There's a water coming from the wells, it doesn't come from the river.

Well, but it is all tributary water and our wells are right beside the river and they do affect the water level in the river.

It's not coming out of the river.

Not like trembling.

Granite hunting, number one, is they take surface water. Part of Granite takes surface water. Kremlin takes surface water, not out of the Colorado, out of a different location. But they're suffering a little bit more based on surface water versus us with wells. But to get to Trustee Brooklyn's point, another year like this, the aquifer will be affected. With Denver water, the statement he read, they're taking, I think it's 131 CFS out of the top. the 40 and gets down to us. So I think there's more play there as well.

And really, I think what I wanted is clear direction for us to develop some kind of drought plan so that we're not looking for a fire extinguisher when the fire is going on. We need to have things prepared and in place so that we can react and not find ourselves in the middle of summer and in this situation and going, well, here's what we got. I think we can do better. We can be better. We can be a leader in our community, in our valley, in our county. I think... Yeah, we're better insulated than most of these communities around us because we are on well water. But I think we have a moral obligation to our neighbors. I mean, Kremling is having, they're trying to figure out how to dig deeper for their secondary water supply in the Colorado River, you know.

We have to give our residents information.

If we lower the water level in the Colorado River, we are affecting our neighbors.

We have to give them the information that they can use real time instead of getting it three months later. The other issue, there is sort of drought pricing in that there are certain levels where you do pay more based on your utilization, right?

Yeah, currently it's $3, $6, and $9 depending on which.

You are paying, if you use more, you are paying more.

The conversation for drought pricing was taking tier two and tier three and raising those and leaving tier one, which is traditionally your household use and keeping that the $3 or whatever the new one would be. But taking the tier two and tier three, so if you're using 80,000 gallons in three months, you actually notice that in your bill versus a $75 increase.

Right, but in order to do that, I think you need to give people the information in real time.

That's why I started this process in April, because I wanted to. Because otherwise, not everybody has access to that information because not all of the meters are changed. Right. Because we're still in the process of going through the meter change. So we haven't reached 100% or 90%.

But please give the people that do have the smart meters, give them access to it.

I'm sorry.

Anyway, I'd like to make a motion to approve Resolution 20260603 around mandatory watering restrictions.

I will second with the condition that we push forward with a drought plan.

Is it possible to come up with one by the next meeting? I mean, I feel like we've got to get that. I think so.

I mean, I think you could have an outline.

Yeah.

i think i gave you an outline well that that probably means our communication and our drop pricing are not sufficient that's the feedback i would take from that

So I would charge our interim town manager with trying to get that on a agenda soon for us to start counting out because it's nothing to really do tonight. And by adding that to this resolution, it changes it. So I'm not willing to agree to that with your condition personally, but we do need to do it. There's no question.

Clear direction for staff is my point here.

So, what I'm hearing in relation to this clear direction, and I'd like to know if this is collectively what the board is supporting. Um, we want an actual drought plan that goes beyond matching what's happening in grand county number 1 with these watering restrictions. This resolution there seems to be support of as a stop gap along with education. And then we want to look at the drought pricing and the potential for monthly billing and providing access to the information from smart meters.

Okay, I mean, I'm not modifying resolution.

No, no, I'm not talking about modifying the resolution. I'm just trying to clarify what the board would like to see.

Yeah, and the future, I think in the short term, we could do social media posts about. This that we're hopefully going to pass momentarily and also just putting some. Facts about our drought situation.

Absolutely.

Does this get published in the newspaper?

Another thing I thought was to do something fun and recognize people that really do cut back. Is it easy for that system to compare one quarter, like 2025 to 2026 on usage or not?

Not real time. No, not real time. Right.

It wouldn't be real time. It would have to be after the fact.

And how is this going to be communicated to second homeowners that aren't here and not getting the information?

Well, if they're getting their utility bill.

Yeah, but they don't get it until three months afterwards.

Becky, when are the next set of bills sent out? That's coming up. It'll be the first week in July.

Okay, so we could put in notification.

But if it's an automatic pay, they won't even open it. It just goes out of their bank. Right.

Yeah, but I think we got to try and put some sort of notification, some sort of educational piece in there. And then if we...

Direct mailer, an educational mailer to everybody that has a water utility bill. That's an educational piece. I mean, a lot of people are not on social media. Like you said, people won't really open their automatic bill pay.

It's going to have to be a multi-pronged opinion to reach everybody. Yes.

Yes. Okay, so...

So there's a motion on the table and a second. All in favor?

I just want the second without conditions. That was confusing. Is it just a second? I know. Okay. That's a second. Okay.

All right. So are you seconding it as? Just as it is. Okay. All in favor?

Aye. Opposed?

Aye.

Okay.

Question passes.

We'll look forward to working ahead with it. That's very sobering.

Okay.

Alright.

So again, we are skipping. We're moving E to the end. So we'll move on to Resolution 2026-0604, appointing members to the Board of the Fraser Downtown Development Authority. Sarah C.,

Thank you, uh, for the record, they're good hands, right? Assistant town manager. Um. So, before you tonight are applications for board applications for the downtown development authority, uh, back in December 2023, an ordinance was approved to move forward with the downtown development authority and an election in April of 2024. the was passed. At that time, the board was formed with staggered terms. So instead of the standard four year terms, we have board terms expiring every year with some of those terms expiring at four years. So this year we have two terms that are up. Those terms include Nick Crabb and Steve Fitzgerald. Nick Crabb has applied to retain his seat. And Steve Fitzgerald is stepping down, but is looking to hopefully see Cassidy Peterson, the new director for Fraser Valley Arts, appointed in his place, was his thinking. Um, once appointed these board members would serve for 4 years, their board member responsibilities include implementing the vision mission and objectives at the, holding regular meetings. Performing fiduciary duties, acting in the best interest of the town, the, the business community residents and visitors. implementing the plan of development, strategic planning and evaluations of projects and priorities, capitalized opportunities for tax increment, evaluating and determining financial strategies, supporting and facilitating projects, and working closely with County Fraser staff and the Board of Trustees. Recently, the DDA, just as a quick update, we do have signs going in once Amtrak does their work on the platform there. So I think those look quite nice. We have them. We're just waiting for Amtrak to hang them. They've also been holding a come-up conference series. So they're currently meeting every other month instead of every month. And on the off months that they don't meet Tuesday mornings, they've been doing a conference series. It's been pretty well attended and I think has gone really well. So they focused on different kind of, they had one on real estate. They've had one on financial strategies.

I am blanking now. Yeah. Starting small businesses. Yeah. Success of local people starting small businesses. Yeah.

Yes, they've been held at the roastery. We've had different speakers and pretty good attendance. We're also talking through a potential event sponsorship policy. Applications, as I mentioned, Cassidy Peterson has submitted an application. She recently was appointed as the Fraser Valley Arts first full-time director. She has a lot of experience in marketing and business and has been in the Valley for quite some time. Nick Crabb, who's currently on the DDA and is an active member serving as a treasurer. He's the owner of Camber. He's also a resident within the DDA district. And then Kelly Peck is a resident within the district. She currently works in real estate. I believe we do have Kelly on line if you would like her to introduce yourself and say anything in a moment. I don't, Cassidy had a scheduling conflict, so it's not able to make it. The board was initially set up with 11 members. We had a bit of kind of attrition that first year. So it came down to nine members. I do think nine members is a good size for the board right now. But the way the bylaws are written, it can be anywhere between five and 11 members. So really it is at the discretion of the board of trustees. If you wanted to appoint zero or all three of these members to the board.

So right now we have nine.

We have nine, but two seats are expiring. So if nobody was appointed, we'd be down to seven. If you appoint two, we'd be back to nine.

And the two that seats are expiring, they are not running again.

And then Steve is not. Yeah.

So if we appoint Nick and the other two gals that are applying, then that would be 10. Right. And there is attrition. It does leave room for attrition. Almost always there's someone that for some reason takes another job or moves out of the district.

Yeah. And the first year we had one person scheduling. It just didn't work for her to attend meetings. So she had to step aside and then we had somebody move out of the district.

What is attendance usually like? Good. Six to nine. Okay.

Yeah, it's pretty solid, but I would say that there's generally one or more members missing. So in terms of keeping that odd number of board members, I see the value in that, but it's not like the board of trustees where you typically do have seven.

So it would be six out of 10 that we would need to have, right?

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So that is one consideration. You need to have at least one more person attending to have that quorum, to have that majority. Whereas if you had a nine member board, you would need five. But we've generally not had a problem with that. I think there was one meeting where it was close.

Just a comment on the people, or one of them has presented, I think Cassidy is more than qualifying. I'm concerned that it was presented as almost a legacy being, that it doesn't belong to the Art Center, you know. It does not. And I want to make that clear. And I apologize. Yeah, yeah. I just want to make sure that we're...

Yes. But that's her connection. That's how she's eligible because she works.

Yeah. The idea that Steve is passing it on or something.

He could have appointed him or not appointed him. But I just wanted to provide that explanation that he opted not to run again. In the hopes that she would be alive as a representative. Yeah. But there is no requirement that there be a representative from Fraser Valley. Right. Yeah. So.

Can we hear from Kelly?

Sure. Hey, Kelly.

Hi, can you guys hear me? Yes. Hi, I'll turn my camera on too. Hi, nice to meet everyone. Yeah, I'm Kelly. I do work in real estate. I work for the real estate company Mountain Division. I've currently been there for about two and a half years. I am their executive assistant slash director of finance there. I also have my real estate license. I don't work as an agent. I'm more on the backside and the development projects. I also used to work for Devil's Thumb Ranch. I managed their HR department for three years there. So did a lot of interviewing and hiring and learned a lot about the community there too. I'm currently on my condo's HOA board, so very familiar with some processes there. My husband and I have been in the community for six years, homeowners for two and a half. We are active in the community. He works for the school district. We love to enjoy, you know, all that Fraser and Grand County has to offer through the public forums and just the great outdoors. All right.

it's great thanks kelly yeah yeah thank you great thank you thank you all right thoughts forward i think all three are great i think they all they all have different things they can bring in to the dda so i'm for all three of them i agree i agree so we can appoint three we don't Correct. Okay.

Yep. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to approve Resolution 20260604, appointing members to the board of the Fraser Downtown Development Authority for Cassidy Peterson, Nick Kraft, and Kelly Peck.

Second.

Further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Great. Welcome, Kelly.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly. I'll be in touch about the next DBA board meeting and getting you all set up with that.

Great. Awesome. Thanks so much.

All right. Moving on to Resolution 2026-0605, Approving Participation in Child Care Educator Stipend Pilot Program.

and pass these out that are not in the pocket. Again, Sarah Catanzaro assistant town manager. And we also have with us tonight Megan Ledeen from the Grand Foundation and Alicia Janes from Winter Park to help answer any questions on the proposal that we are going to discuss. Oops. Sorry, I lost it on my screen. It appears that it is still there. The proposal that we are going to discuss today was a pilot program that Winter Perk has put together and worked with Megan to implement in the Grand Foundation. So jumping right in. So as we all know, we've been talking about child care for a while as a challenge in our community and something that the market just does not support like one would hope it would in terms of the financials working, as well as just not having enough capacity for all of the kiddos in our county. Last year, Grand Beginnings had partnered with EPIC to help kind of solidify what those early childhood education challenges and opportunities were in Grand County. and help determine the need for sustainable funding. Their work confirmed that the system currently serves less than 40% of local children that could have spots. The tuition tends to cover only about 60% of providers' actual cost, and that workforce shortages are driven primarily by low compensation. So based on that, EPIC had made a proposal. This proposal is separate from EPIC's work, but just wanted to lay that as the foundation for some of the data that we are working with. Um, Again, I think we've all come to agreement that childcare really is essential infrastructure for a thriving local economy. If we want families to be able to stay here and live here, if we want a workforce, there need to be affordable quality childcare options. This is important to that workforce stability. I think there's a lot of momentum right now for collaboration on this. So I really appreciate that Winter Park took the step of kind of proposing an actual step forward with this three-year pilot program. And what is being proposed would provide quarterly stipends to childcare workers to help stabilize the workforce and generate data to inform long-term system investments. The idea is that we would start with educator pay, which I think we all recognize is an issue. It's just too low for them to be able to attract and retain workers because you can't live and survive here on those wages. So starting with that and then moving forward with a kind of a comprehensive approach. But this seemed like a good first step. So what has been proposed would start in July. The teachers would receive quarterly payments that would be provided through the Grand Foundation through this fund. They would go to the centers who would give them out to the teachers. The stipends are meant to work out to approximately $2 an hour raise on average. So it'd be $1,000 per quarter stipend for those that work full-time, which is defined as Is it actually 32 hours? Okay. I thought I updated that. 32 hours per week. Sorry. I think I pulled up the wrong presentation because I know I updated that. But part-time was more than 20 hours, but less than 32 hours would get $600 per quarter. So, initially the funding for this grand county has committed 100,000 towards this winter park is committed 100,000. they are asking Frazier for 25,000 with the idea that the town is currently supporting the initiative at St. Louis landing to actually build out an early childhood education center. So we do have a lot of funding going into that. The grand foundation would add in 50,000 so we'd be working with 275,000 to start. I think the idea is starting on this side of the valley, and then hopefully getting some of our neighboring communities, like, Graham be on board to contribute to this fund moving forward as the fund is intended to support early childhood education across grand county.

So, do we be committing to this for 3 years 25,000 every 3. Every year, or is this.

It would be up to the board to do annual appropriations each year. So we could increase or decrease that amount. I think having an amount that we feel comfortable that we could support for the next three years helps kind of stabilize the program.

Sure.

I think it would be detrimental to have teachers start to see this as part of their income and then to lose that. So the idea is for three years we try this out. and see where it goes.

So we're committing to this for the next three years?

Yes, subject to annual appropriations, but yeah, that's the idea.

Is this taxable income to the workers?

Yes. I see Megan nodding her head.

And what does Gramby do for child care? Do they subsidize child care at Gramby?

That's a question for

I mean, and also are we subsidizing Granby residents with this program?

Megan Ledeen, Director of the Grand Foundation for the hundreds of thousands of listeners. Through their process, the town of Granby does support early childhood education. They also provide in-kind support for Granby Play Days on a dollar a month lease for the facility that they use. And so I guess in answer to your question, the objective is to have the fund countywide. you know, for Grand County and the commissioners to invest in it, they want that countywide as far as the nonprofit early childhood centers that would be applicable for right now. And so in theory, I don't think you're necessarily subsidizing it, but those teachers are eligible. But please note that there could be Frayser residents that their children go to the grandkids location that's located in Granby. or they could go to Granby play days as well. So that's data that we'll rely on once we start this program to get those demographics to be able to report that back to you for those future year appropriations.

Okay. And this is like zero out of four or five?

Correct. It's meant for, so we did have a discussion a day or two ago, I believe Sarah asked about day camps, summer camps, after school programs. They are not included in this program. This is for nonprofit early childhood centers right now, so zero to five. So the school districts right now are not included in that as well, nor any for-profit centers. The reason that we did that was we just wanted to see with our nonprofits, which are really hard to compete with those for-profit centers and with the school district because they give higher wage increases and they have a different benefit structure. For example, grandkids actually this week just lost three teachers, gave their notice.

Oh, geez.

So just to give you a feel of how hard it is for nonprofits to compete with that wage structure. And so we thought right now that we would start it at just the nonprofit centers just to see how that goes. We did set it up or we set it up as a field of interest fund. So that could be a dynamic process in the future that we could look outside of the nonprofits in the future.

I think we need to come up with a more comprehensive countywide plan. But in the interim, this is a good start.

I think this is just actually a component of a greater plan from the meetings I went to six months ago. My question is, you mentioned that the school district has gravity because of pay and benefits and that kind of stuff. Is this going to be sufficient that the nonprofit school community will have its gravity or are we gonna draw from elsewhere because of this or is it?

The dollar amount just to cut to the chase. I think it's going to be a bare minimum to be honest, I think, but it's a start, right?

Yeah, and that's kind of where I was thinking.

Because we need to have teachers. Those waiting lists are so large for our nonprofit centers. And the school district actually has a fiscal year of June 30th. So they're budgeting process right now to start July 1st. They actually have a proposed budget to increase their teacher pay. I believe it's like 12%. which is super hard for those nonprofit centers to compete with. And with the subsidies, the early education center up at the resort of which Sky and Case are fully in support of them not being included right now because they do subsidize that center quite largely.

So this is more to stop the bleeding than to create gravity.

I mean, they left three teachers this week. Granted, they gave notices. And from what Anya and Rebecca were saying, they were all due to teacher wages, just so you guys know. But that was definitely a footnote within their reason.

Thank you.

And Adam, if I'm remembering correctly, Epic's report showed an increase of $4. It was kind of needed to bring people up to that living wage.

Yeah. So I think, yeah, the large amount of money we bring into this. So once establishing and starting this fund, there's opportunities for us to go out and leverage additional dollars. And then I do want to clarify, too, when I talk about the schools and the for-profit center, they're still eligible to apply to the community priorities fund, the 1A fund. That also has earmarked for childcare. And so are the nonprofit centers. So there is another pool of funding that those entities can ask for too. But as we know, lodging tax dollars are down right now. And then we can't always say in the future, based upon the commissioners and the percentages, it might not always be the same dollar amount in that fund either.

I will share just kind of anecdotal information. I was on a call today with a child care task force that's put on by CAST and Telluride was presenting. And they have a number of different facilities that they own and then leased an operator. But they have started really taking over the actual operations because even with those highly subsidized leases, they're finding that the financials just are not working. So they were losing operators. And so that is what I'm not suggesting we are moving in that direction by any stretch. I don't want that to be misconveyed. But I think it just demonstrates just how hard it is for them to make the financials work without support in these communities.

So, tell you are doing that, were they getting the benefits of being an employee of the town and that would be a yes.

And that's what they said, and they said, initially, you know, there was some concern from some of the other child care providers, but what they've done, they lease a space to a preschool that's. Has a separate operator, so they get a subsidized lease. But for infant and toddler care, where it's really hard to make the numbers work, that is where they have taken over operations. And so then they're employees of the town and they get all the benefits and it's a more comprehensive package. So again, for the record, not suggesting that's what we do, but I think it just demonstrates that the support is needed.

And then just two other points I want to add, you know, as Sarah alluded to in beginning, you know, we wouldn't be here without Grand Beginnings and their partnership with Epic as far as coming up with the data. And so Grand Beginnings has been included in this process. Alicia, myself, John, and Katie have all met about the structure of this fund and everything. Just so you guys know, they have been very much included. And Katie has seen the one-page document that we're kind of going to move forward with. And if Frasier does come on, we'll add Frasier's logo down below. But it's a front and back with guidelines so we can provide those to the childcare entities. But Katie's all about it and for it too. And then just for one more bit of clarity, Town of Granby was kind of asked, am I correct in that? to invest in this fund as well. And where they're at right now is they've asked Grand Beginnings to drill down the data that Epic came up with just for Granby. So they feel like they're gonna look into that as what the need is in Granby and then look to future funding. So they have been asked. And then continually, I think we should look at Grand Lake and Kremling as well. Yeah.

Okay, that's good.

Yeah, the Grand Foundation would administer this. There would be quarterly kind of reporting that would be required from the center. So hopefully that gives us some good data to work with moving forward.

Sarah, do you mind if I interject real quick? Yes, you're welcome. If you put on that screen a 3% fee by law, we as a community foundation, according to IRS guidelines, do have to assess that fee. But we're investing that back into the fund. Just so you guys know, we're not keeping that. We're not going back into the fund. I just want to make sure I clarified that. Thank you. Thank you.

Grand foundation is awesome. Thank you. You're tremendous leadership.

So, we do have the 10 did budget 100,000 dollars towards early childhood education in the 2026 town of freezer budget with how that was going to be used kind of to be determined. The idea is, if the board does wish to proceed in participation of this pilot, that 25,000 would go towards that. that early educator's stipend funds and the remainder of the budgeted amount would be reserved to assist with the St. Louis Landing Early Childhood Education Facility if needed to kind of help with that build out.

I like that idea.

Do you have a comment?

I'd like to make a resolution of 20260605, Approving Participation in Child Care Education Stipend Pilot Program.

second any further discussion all in favor aye opposed okay motion carries all right resolution 2026 0601 on-site distribution extension mpiei public works facility thank you ladies

Mayor, Board of Trustees, Paul Johnson, Public Works Director. Before you is Resolution 2026 of 601. It's a resolution authorizing the town manager to sign the site-specific contract and construction estimate with Mount Parks Electric for the project at 510 Grand County Road 72, which is the public works facility. So where the town has authorized the design of a new public works facility and the town plans to utilize certificates of participation to fund the construction of the public works facility. And whereas certificates of participation funds can be used to reimburse expenses incurred up to three years prior to issuance. I'm asking the Board of Trustees to pass this resolution to allow the manager to sign the site-specific contract and construction estimate with Mountain Parts Electric in the amount of $349,657 for the installation of three-phase power to the property. This would be the first step of getting power to that 6W site. Power would be coming down on County Road 72. Looks like their plans are coming from the top of the sledding hill and then bringing it into the property. This is the same, contract that we had signed with Mountain Parks to install the three-phase power down Clayton Court this summer. It's the same contract just for the public works facility. So the thought is that we have three years to pursue reimbursement on these costs. So to keep the project moving and not be stuck with the installation of 2027 or beyond due to the moratoriums, the Mountain Parks won't work outside of it.

Does this also bring power to the drop?

does not bring it to the drop.

No, that's a lot further down. Eventually, I guess.

So they've looked at the mountain parks looked at coming through the quarter mile there at the end of Alderbrook coming up from Saddlehorn or coming 72 and 72 is the easiest path forward. But this is this is their recommendation may ask for three phase. This is how they get good.

I mean, it's going right by the drop.

It's going up 72 coming from the west to the east to the corner.

Oh.

Closer to where Grand Park Drive comes in.

Okay.

That is the plan they provided with this. Got it. Okay.

Those are all budgeted funds, even if we're cutting back on our budget.

They would be up to three years of us obtaining COPs to get reimbursed from the COP proceeds when we close on the COPs. Okay. This hadn't come to the board previously, waiting for the the bridge loan to St. Louis Landing for those funds to come back so that we were not expending these funds drawing down.

I like it.

I have no idea. Is that a reasonable price or cost for that? I mean, is it just what they charge? It's already. It's what they charge.

Our provider in the county, that's their price. Yep. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Said that what I've seen this coming from the three phase power opportunity. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, That came out about this. I we've talked about it. I was then provided by not parks.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Okay, go for it.

There's two locations that this three-phase power could come from.

One's the switchgear that we installed on County Road 721, and it would come down 721 and turn up 72 and go up to the facility. The other alternative is we're extending three-phase as a part of the overlook development that gets nearly to the top of Grand Park Drive. that three-phase could be brought the rest of the way down Grand Park Drive through the 80-foot right-of-way easement we secured from the Johns and is virtually at the site at that point. So, Mountain Parks has not talked to us about, can we do this there? And we said, no, that's not going to work in that location. So, I did not know they changed again. And how much was the cost? I'm sorry, I just had to step out briefly. I mean, yeah.

Part of the course.

Well, no, there's some questionable stuff going on with, they are a nonprofit. It's our co-op, right? And so there's some markups that are happening, we think, on pipe. When we can buy pipe significantly less than what they're charging us for, that's a battle I'm having. So maybe I'll win and you'll be a beneficiary. But they have a handling cost. I understand that. But still, when we can buy pipe substantially less than they can, there's something wrong. And I think they're making a markup on it, but that's not the intent of adding customers to their program at Mountain Parks. So they're supposed to be making their money off the services they're providing. But, Paul, I think you and I just need to meet on that whole 6W thing and kind of get bearings on that again and get Mountain Parks on the phone. Is this Jared that you're dealing with? Okay. All right. So anyway, just FYI for your information, that could change. Okay.

Well, I would say we could, if need be, push this to the July 8th. This contract came after discussions between Mountain Parks. We had notified them that Fires Peak was not open to it coming through there. My understanding was that they had further conversations and then they sent this contract. So I can reach back out based on comments from the property owner. That's the boards.

Can I make a recommendation to table this until the next meeting then? I mean, I have no idea if that's a reasonable amount, but if we can spend less, we should.

Whether it's reasonable or not, the town can't install that. So that is who we'd be using. The cost for the three-phase downflating court was in the realm of $250,000, and this is a longer run. And not parks is going to be the ones to tell us where we're plugging in to 3 things they have to bring 3 phase to me however they see fit to bring 3 phase okay that the location that the list of mentioned would bring power past the drop. I think you just go ahead with it that would bring power to crops to have water and sewer issues but it would bring power we could get power to the drop of the key in that direction but it's a double the length of

Gotcha. Okay. Do we need a second table?

Nope.

All right. So we will continue this next meeting.

Okay. Thank you, Paul.

Thanks, Paul. Staying on up there because we've got Resolution 20260602 Union Pacific Railroad Design Review.

Mayor Board of Trustees, Paul Johnson, Public Works Director, for use of Resolution 20260602 for design review fees by the Union Pacific Railroad Company. This is to lower the road at the underpass there on County Road 72 to take it back to its original condition, which is approximately a little over a foot lower than where it is now. It looks to, it appears that, you know, in maintenance of that road as the county brought in more material to fill potholes, it's gone up over the years.

What's the new design once the road was changed?

I think it's just material gets brought in to make the road better. And it's just, it's brought it up. So we're looking to bring it back to the already approved design specs so that we don't have to go through the much larger process. But this is their cost to review the plans.

It's

It started out at 100,000. We're down to 35 now. So this is another week or two. It's still, to me, it's very expensive to review an already approved set of plans. But that's what they're saying they have to do. So Kimley Horn is prepared to get that onto the railroad.

No, my understanding is that belongs to us and the maintenance on the underpass is ours, even though the county is the one with the road.

The IGA is with the town, yes. The IGA was between the town and the railroad.

For the underpass. But the town now owns that road. But we've allowed the county to

It was the county's road up until February or March. Yeah, just recently.

So it was the county's road, but we're maintaining the underpass.

It was the county's road on the town's land.

So the county still has 721, the Fraser Parkway.

This is what I was asking. And then we just have it up the hill. Town of Fraser still owns 721. It was going to be on the agenda tonight. The agenda was long, so that was something that was easily pushed. But that is three separate parcels that the town acquired in, I believe it was 1989. Then the road went in over top of it. So we're looking to just reciprocate with the county. We got 72. We will give them 7721 between 72 and 73.

Yeah, which makes perfect sense because it's not.

They've been maintaining it, but we have owned the land.

And I have seen semi-trucks stuck under that, I'm serious, under that overpass. And they'll end up letting the air out of the tires so they could back out and get out of there.

Damaged the rear end?

I don't know.

Damaged the bridge.

Back in the 80s, they used to put up big height signs.

Anyway, it's... way overdue. I'd like to make a motion to approve this.

Wait, one sec. We're talking about a foot and it's $35,000. What if we just brought a snowplow under there a couple times?

We are on public record.

Who the heck is talking?

Hi again. So, you know, through our virus grants development and some of the other things that we've done with Mount Parks recently, there's a number of things that need to happen in that underpass. The town of Frayser does own the underpass. I would be surprised if they're making you pay for an access because you should have the formal easement underneath it, like what we secured on the one that I built, the underpass on Grand Park Drive. Mm-hmm. That is an easement that I paid a lot of money for, which gives full right of access, maintenance, et cetera, without notifying them. Underneath that and actually on the bridge structure up to the waterproofing. The town's responsible for the waterproofing down. So the railroad only takes care of basically the ballast on top. This one's similar. It's an old agreement from 89 when this was put in and 721 was built. But nonetheless, there's some other issues here that I think we should jointly partner and try to address, which is the storm drain system underneath it is full of mud, primarily off of 72 that hasn't been re-veg and it literally is full, full, like those culverts really don't flow water. They're probably rotten. I've replaced a number of rotten ones along the parkway. That is our irrigation water that runs through them. And it likely all needs to just be wholesale replaced. So I would like to propose that we work together with Public Works and the county and try to do a joint partnership that rebuilds that, corrects it properly, probably with RCP pipe that's not going to rot, but also potentially lowers it significantly lower than where they're suggesting. So that we can get some meaningful, you know, the Denver Water, for instance, drops its equipment on the Murdoch side of that underpass and will drive it up the road. Because they can't get their trucks underneath it, as an example. We have to route stuff through Eisenhower occasionally, which could be completely avoided. But for that, and that thing's been hit, I can't tell you how many times with stuff that people just didn't realize that it's not very clear. So I think we can make that a lot better and potentially extend the RCP along Meyer lot one in the town of Frazier to Elk Creek, which will make for a better spot there and potentially extend the trail. So I did a proposal to the county of a trail section. On 721, Katie, you walk on there. I've nearly hit a number of people in black. I don't know why they wear black at night walking, but I drive that road home every night. We proposed a road section that would effectively make that look like Old Victory Road with a separated trail next to our fence line, an eight-foot separated trail. That would be over the power that was put in last year and a nice drainage swell and then the road section and another drainage swell. That road's actually quite wide today, and it doesn't need to be that wide. And it would be really nice to create a pedestrian linkage from the underpass all the way through, which we could put on top of the RCP pipe. So big project. We have kind of preliminary conceptual design drawings of it with lineal footages, not hard to put numbers to. But we believe it should be a partnership between Town of Fraser, Grand County, and Buyerspeed Properties. And I think let's not do a small fix when we could fix it right and make it better for the whole area. But that would be my push on that one. Thank you.

So do we need to expedite this? So to address this question, the design for the 722 paving doesn't include the drainage. And we are aware that Biosphere Properties is going to be looking to extend utilities. So we are trying to do a partnership, but we both have projects on know separate tracks on timelines trying to get approvals they need approval from the county and then us same time we need approvals from um you know the board and the planning commission so this is what the railroad sent back when we came to them um i can push back again if that's the board's desire and see if we don't need to do that but that uh iga was presented to the design team and this is where they came back that this is what we need to do to get those plans approved

So moving forward with this wouldn't preclude future partnerships or anything like that?

Design review and, you know, as Mr. Lipscomb mentioned, there's a nice trail section designed for 721. We've seen it. It looks just like Old Victory. It'd be a great addition if we can get to that point. But we are looking to address the drainage problem that's under there from the runoff that has occurred over the years.

I think we should push forward with both fronts. partnering on the bigger stuff and moving forward with the smaller issue at hand. And just hearing that the underpass gets hit from time to time and we own it, that's a much more expensive situation than just lowering the road.

That's a valid point. Yes. Yeah. And the lower we can get it, the better.

So I can look into it some more.

So if we go this direction and we want to make it more sophisticated down the road with the trail and everything, we're going to pay another $35,000?

We want to work within the existing embankments. So whatever we can fit between the concrete now is what we can get. So that may not be a divided trail at that section. It may be a wide sidewalk, but then it can fan back out on the other side. But we don't want to do... Because we'd be building... If we were to try to widen that road, you would have to build another temporary apartment to get them to go over.

Yeah, no. Why would you lower the interim fix.

Well, this is going to require us to spend millions of dollars and put in a new siding for the railroad.

But but like If we're going to pave that section eventually, shouldn't we just get that plan approved now?

That's what we're working towards. This is their design review fees of this new road section.

I thought it was only just dropping it a foot.

No, this is to drop it, pave it, fix the drainage, do everything within that 200 feet. Fix the drainage too.

Yes. I'll make a motion to approve Resolution 20260602. I'll second.

Any further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Now we will jump to Conservation Easement Survey Results. Sarah W.,

And I just want to throw out there before Sarah starts. We do have Kent with us tonight as well. We wanted to get input from the community on what they would like to ideally see in a conservation easement in the meadow. But we are still working through legally what we can ask for and what will actually happen. So I wanted to make sure everybody just has that in their mind as we are thinking this. This is kind of the scenario that dream scenario, the community, you know, wants to see, but we cannot wave the magic wand and make it happen tomorrow. So, okay.

Mayor, trustees, Sir, with marketing and communications manager for the town of Fraser for the conservation easement survey results. So this is just a 30,000 foot view of the survey. Also attached was the all the results for each question. There are a bunch of comments in there. So I recommend if you haven't, you can go in there and look at those. But again, what I'm presenting is just a 30,000 foot view on what people want. All right. So we actually, we had a lot of feedback on this. If I'm correct, it says 350 plus, but it was around 379 responses. Most of the people were Frayser residents, but also Grand County and second homeowners. And again, you can dive, you can see the exact numbers if you open up that full report. Top values identified preservation of a natural landscape wildlife habitat protection minimal human impact and interest in trail access year round summer and winter conservation is clearly the priority, but access was also important to many of our respondents. Public access sentiment. So most people were comfortable to very comfortable with the access, some were neutral, and then there was a very small group that didn't want any access. So this was a 30,000-foot view of all the comments that we got. Again, there were a lot of them, so you should go in and look. The conservation priorities were protect natural landscapes, avoid development, and maintain wildlife habitat, access and recreation, desire for trail connectivity, year-round use, public access was seen as important. Concerns were overuse, environmental impact, trash maintenance and management, and protecting long-term integrity of the land. So there were two core tensions that people were concerned about. The first one was conservation. First, minimal human impact, limited or no access. And then the second one was access supported, trails and connectivity, managed recreation. So what does this mean exactly? Sarah Silver, So overall, the Community values, the natural character highly there's openness to access if it was managed carefully, there is a clear need for defined management approach and a balance between use and preservation.

Sarah Silver, Thanks Sarah.

yeah the comments are pretty interesting. anybody have any questions for sarah comments that's a great turnout from the survey yeah people are still clearly passionate about that that meadow and keeping it protected the intent really hasn't changed yeah right over time which is good okay well that brings us to the end of our discussion on possible actions um updates You got a stainless landing.

So this is quick and short and sweet, but we did close on the bonds for stainless landing. So as Lori mentioned earlier, we have that money in an account for the freezer housing authority. That second interim loan money has been repaid and is back in our general fund. And the project is moving along.

Yay.

So yeah, I think Lori is happy to have that money back there, and we can start looking at some other projects. Paul, I know, has an update on the wastewater treatment plant.

So Monday afternoon, the sanitation district managers met and agreed to move forward with a hearing to the Water Quality Board, the Water Quality Division, push back against the couple of the limits that they proposed and also the compliance schedule. The compliance schedule would require a plant to have designed and constructed everything to meet the new limits by January 1st of 2031, which is practically impossible with their review times of 12 to 18 months. So we authorized the plant's law firm to file that hearing for us or a request for a hearing. Three Lakes was granted their hearing. So if we are successful in getting that hearing granted, we will then negotiate to try and get that limit down. The Water Quality Division has moved to change some of the math and some of the regulations they're kind of working through. And some things may even get pushed all the way back to 2040. So there's a lot of concern that our permit was issued along with Aspen Consolidated and Three Lakes while they're in the midst of a review of their processes. So there's a lot of groups that are questioning why those three permits were issued. So have to make that decision by the 29th. So there wasn't much time. So both Winter Park Ranch and Grant County number one agreed to moving forward with this. That's really a zero sum situation where we either spend the small amount of money there or start planning a $40 million upgrade that may or may not work with expansion. So it's kind of a three prong process. We have the current upgrades that are needed at the plant. That's just the ongoing maintenance. We have the new nutrient limits and compliance schedule that the CDPHE has issued. And then also the trigger by Grand County number one for an upgrade review. So Working with all of those, we want to make sure that everything we do is not a one step forward, three steps back as we go to the next phase. So we've asked for the hearing to try and see if we can get some of those limits raised a little bit. So currently, the total inorganic nitrogen limit is 15. They lowered us to 2.8. which is a huge reduction and it's on a rolling average of two years. So Logan can have one bad day at the plant every two years to continue to meet those limits. So just trying to negotiate with them and kind of look where their regulations are going to make sure we can continue to meet those. So currently just kind of working through some of that stuff.

And how about flows in the Fraser River and how they affect all of that? So, I mean,

currently we meet temperature and they didn't lower our temperature limit so we're currently in compliance on temperature and the flows still kind of go through there the only thing on flow is that they currently it's an open ditch uh the effluent pipe on the outfall pipe is open they just want that piped in to a point discharge you know out of a pipe at the river so that's the one so we're not really going to push back against that but it's more the limits that are Basically at the limits of technology currently, and we know they'll just get more stringent and those limits would be cut again when we go to expand for future development. So trying to get everything set up in a logical manner. So that'll be moving forward. That'll be filed by the 29th, which is when that has to be filed.

Those permits are based on assumptions of flows in the receiving waters. the discharge permits. Do you know what that assumed flow level is?

I do not know what they assumed the flow was. They've been working on it for over 10 years, so I'm not sure what they assumed, what their assumptions are. But

I'm curious about reality.

And are the plants, wastewater attorney feel that they did not perform the math in the same way that they would perform the math. So there's a conflict in how they're getting to the numbers. What's the reasoning for the pipe? I don't know why they want the pipe. I haven't dug into it. It's just, I mean, we're really going to push back against the degradation limits that are really, really low. And then the compliance schedule, which you can't meet unless they give us exceptions for their review time.

Gotcha. Yeah. It's like 20 feet of pipe, right? It's not much. Yeah.

But that's not something we'd push back against.

Yeah.

You know, it's a very narrow scope on what we're pushing back against is the degradation limits and then the compliance schedule. Gotcha.

Fair enough. Any other updates, Bored? i have one other update um our assistant town planner alan did put in his notice so we do have a position open for an assistant town planner okay well we have a couple executive sessions um we won't make any decisions during those executive sessions so we'll just adjourn so we won't rejoin the meeting but i'll have peggy read those motions

I'd like to make a motion to enter into two executive sessions. The first executive session is for the conference with the town attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice specific to legal questions under CRS section 24-6-402-4B regarding litigation update to include the assistant town manager, Sarah Katanzarite, public works director, Paul Johnson, town planner, Jack Seward, and town attorney, Kent Whitmer. The second executive session is for the conference with the town attorney for the purposes of receiving legal advice, specific legal questions under CRS section 24-6-402 regarding land use discussion to include the assistant town manager, Sarah Catanzarite, public works director, Paul Johnson, town planner, Jack Seward, and the town attorney, Kent Whitmer.

Second,

Any further discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Antoinette, it's my opinion that both executive sessions do not need to be recorded. They'll be attorney-client privileged.

Back and