workshop — short term rentals board of trustees to … · 1/8/2019 · by: mayor paul chavoustie...

TOWN OF GRANBY, COLORADO

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

JANUARY 8, 2019

DINNER SERVED TO BOARD AND STAFF

5: 00 PM

WORKSHOP — SHORT TERM RENTALS3: 00- 6: 00 PM

MAYOR CHAVOUSTIE TO CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF GRANBY

BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO ORDER AT THE TOWN HALL, ZERO JASPER AVENUEAny Board member with any potential conflicts of interest regarding any of the agenda matters will declare them at this time and

Pledge of Allegiance.)

UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS — COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTESThis time is reserved for members of the public to make a presentation to the Board on items or issues that are not scheduled on

the agenda. The Board will not discuss/ debate these items, nor will the Board make any decisions on items presented during thistime, rather, the Board will refer the items to staff for follow up.) 6: 00 PM

1) PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING / TOWN MANAGER

A) RESOLUTION 2019-01- 08A, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF THE

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RAILROAD MUSEUM IN THE INDUSTRIAL

DISTRICT SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR THE GRAND COUNTY MODEL

RAILROAD CLUB AND

B) APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AGREEMENT FOR THE

RAILROAD MUSEUM

6: 00 PM

2) GRAND COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT UPDATE / STEPHANIE RALPH

6: 15 PM

3) APPROVAL OF THE BUDGETED VEHICLE PURCHASE / TOWN MANAGER

6: 30 PM

4) APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE GRANBY RANCH FILING 17 /

TOWN MANAGER

6: 40 PM

5) DISCUSSION OF A POSSIBLE ROW ACQUISITION AT 97 W. DIAMOND AVENUE /

TOWN MANAGER

6: 55 PM

6) APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS:

A) 2019-01- 08B, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ANNUALLY A PUBLIC PLACE FORPOSTING NOTICES AND ESTABLISHING A MEETING PLACE / TOWN CLERKB) 2019-01- 08C, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2016 COLORADO MUNICIPAL

RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS FOR THE TOWN OFGRANBY, COLORADO / TOWN CLERK

C) 2019-01- 08D, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2019 AMOUNT OF DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAMS ESTABLISHED OCTOBER 14, 2003 THROUGH THE GRAND COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND IN 2011 FOR THETOWN OF GRANBY / FINANCE DIRECTOR7: 10 PM

7) DISCUSSION OF THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE APPLICANTS / TOWN CLERK7:20 PM

8) CONSENT AGENDA

7:30 PMThe items listed under "Consent Agenda" are a group of items to be acted on with a single motion and vote. This agenda is

designed to expedite the handling of limited routine matters by the Board. The Board has received the information on thesematters in their Board packets prior to the meeting. The Mayor will ask if any citizen wishes to have any specific item discussed. A Board member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda on behalf of a citizen or himself and will statewhen the item will be discussed in the meeting or tabled to another meeting. The removal of an item will require a second and amajority vote of the Board to be removed. Items on the consent agenda are then voted on by a single motion, second, and non -rollcall vote.)

a) Accounts Payable for JANUARY 8, 2019

b) Minutes for DECEMBER 11, 2018

9) COMMITTEE & STAFF REPORTS

7: 35 PM

Administrative / Chair Shaw / Trustees Johnson and HardyTown Clerk Report

Finance Director Report

Economic Development / Chair Hardy / Trustees Raible and JohnsonChamber — reports are sent to the Board when received

Public Safety / Chair Johnson / Trustees Hardy and Trustee TindleChiefs Report — No report received

Public Works / Chair Tindle / Trustees Shaw and O' FlahertyDirector' s Report

Recreation / Chair Raible / Trustees O' Flaherty and TindleDirector' s Report

Water / Chair O' Flaherty / Trustees Shaw and Raible

Superintendent' s ReportMayoral Update / Mayor Chavoustie

Town Manager' s Report

Town Attorney' s Update / Scott Krob

BOARD TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO C.R.S. 24-6- 402 (4) OR

MEETING TO ADJOURN

7: 50 PM

Any matter may be taken up at any time during the meeting EXCEPT DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS WHICH ARE TIMESENSITIVE. Items on the agenda are approximate and intended as a guide for the Town Board. " Estimated Time" is subject to

change, as is the order of the agenda except for PUBLIC HEARING TIMES AND ORDER. Anyone wishing to attend the meetingand needs special accommodations, please contact the Town Clerk prior to the meeting. Every effort will be made to accommodatethe request. For deadlines and information required to schedule an item on the agenda, please contact Deb Hess, CMC, Town

Clerk, at 970-887-2501 ext. 201.

DA'C'E OF MEETING:

PRINT NAME

1- S-, o ( g i PC

SIGN -IN SKEET

BZA, 3PECIAI.

lel) 0-

E-MAIL ADDRESS (if you would like the agendas)

lDuwo",., 1M,

rcC v ae s`

AM2, 4

N

ripp t 0) f

84-t, LL c_LL oL_ Ii -L, 64jPa c -t,4 a

w J

S l VIC, , Cv

Town of GranbyBOT Meeting Minutes

January 8, 2019Page 1

TOWN OF GRANBY, COLORADO

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

MEETING MINUTES

JANUARY 8, 2019

PRESENT: Roll Call. Present: Mayor Paul Chavoustie, Trustee Nick Raible, Trustee Josh

Hardy, Trustee Natascha O' Flaherty, Trustee Cathy Tindle. Absent: MayorPro Tem Deborah J.K. Shaw, Trustee Becky Johnson.

STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Aaron Blair; Town Attorney Scott Kroh; Finance DirectorSharon Spurlin; and Town Clerk Deb Hess, who recorded the meeting. Minutes are not verbatim.

TIME: 5:00 PM — DINNER AND

3: 00- 6: 00 PM - WORKSHOP

6:02 PM — BOT MEETING

BY: Mayor Paul Chavoustie

LOCATION: TOWN HALL, ZERO JASPER AVENUE

SHORT TERM RENTAL WORKSHOP / TOWN MANAGER AARON BLAIR

3: 00- 6: 00 PM

DINNER SERVED TO THE BOARD AND STAFF

5: 00 PM

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

6: 02 PM

Chavoustie called the meeting to order. Everyone said the Pledge of Allegiance. O' Flaherty saidthere could be a conflict with the Granby Ranch items since she is a resident. There were no otherconflicts of interest.

UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS — COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES

6: 03 PM

Chavoustie asked if there were any unscheduled public comments.

Matt Girard, resident of Granby Ranch and President of the GRMD Granby Ranch Municipal District. A quick comment about the roadway specifications for the Town. He talked to Blair about this in thelast couple of days. Just in summary, in July, he presented to the Board of Trustees a concept of a threelegged stool on the road specs. One, design specs, two, construction specs, and three,

acceptance/ tolerance specs. Once again, without any leg of that stool, the process can easily fall down. He knew that Blair is working with the Town Engineer on updating all the Town' s specs, including theroadway specs. Another note of discussion, on Thursday of this week, the status of that, he just wantedto remind everybody that Granby Ranch, it self, be the Headwaters District and Lance Badger has a

4,000,00045, 000,000 roadway package that is currently out to bid. That bid package bids tentativelyJanuary 31. He wanted to ask the Town and the Trustees to support Blair and Dave Kotz in reallyprioritizing the roadway specs portion of the Town' s specs so they can be incorporated into thereconstruction of the roads in Granby Ranch that is forthcoming this summer, hopefully. Thanks.

PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING / TOWN MANAGER

A) RESOLUTION 2019-01- 08A, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF THE

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RAILROAD MUSEUM IN THE INDUSTRIAL

DISTRICT SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR THE GRAND COUNTY MODEL

RAILROAD CLUB AND

B) APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AGREEMENT FOR THE

RAILROAD MUSEUM

6: 04 PM

Chavoustie opened the public hearing.

Blair said the outstanding issue at the time was the payment of fees which they have actually paid sincethen. They came in last week and paid all the fees that were associated with their conditional use permitand back fees that they owed. At this time, there is nothing that we need from them. It is just a matter if

Town of GranbyBOT Meeting MinutesJanuary 8, 2019Page 2

you are comfortable with continuing the conditional use permit on the Town property for railroadmuseum.

Chavoustie said he knew that he was trying to get the sanitation figure out for the spring or summer.

Blair said he hasn' t talked to Mr. Naples in a month or so.

Chavoustie said he went to the museum over the holidays with his kids and he said that is what he wasworking on.

Raible asked if that included the water. Whatever happened with the water?

O' Flaherty said, we, as a Board, told him we would give him a water tap if he escrowed the money.

Blair said nothing has happened to this date. He hasn' t come in and requested the water to him.

O' Flaherty asked if we put a deadline on our offer.

Blair said not to his knowledge.

Raible said he didn' t think so, but that was if he paid for the installation, then we would give him the

tap.

Chavoustie said he needed to get through the holiday season because that is when the donations come in. He said that is his first priority, it was the first think he said when he saw him.

Hardy said this will keep him open.

Chavoustie asked if this was a year extension.

Hess said it is up to the Board.

Raible said he thought a year sounded reasonable.

O' Flaherty said one year, because that will give us the ability to evaluate how things are going and tosee progress. She would hate to go over a year.

Krob asked when they wanted the water issues addressed. If you approve it tonight and give him a one

year period, then you probably won' t see much on the water issue for a year. You don' t necessarilyhave to approve this tonight. You could continue it to see where the water issue is. It is really a Boarddecision.

Chavoustie said we could put a June date on it, that he has to have the water and sewer installed by.

O' Flaherty said her understanding was that we could table this until he gives us a deadline or takes careof it. Obviously, he can' t excavate and install it now.

Blair asked ifwe could do that if his conditional use permit is currently expired.

Krob said you could extend the current permit until your next meeting and continue the matter to your

next meeting if you wanted to get more information before you decide whether to extend it and if so, forhow long and on what conditions.

Chavoustie said he thought that if they were in favor of passing it, that we pass it and say that he has tohave water and sewer connected by July 1 or whatever.

O' Flaherty asked ifwe could put that in to the CUP.

Krob said, yes, what you have in front of you is a conditional use permit and an agreement that reflects

the conditions that you have currently and you can add conditions to that. You are not limited to your

old agreement.

Raible asked if he has any other donations seasons. Do people come in on the 4`h of July and donate?


Blair said he doesn' t know his business in and out. If you want him to find out, he will.

O' Flaherty said she liked Chavoustie' s idea. She could go with that.

Chavoustie said just build it in and say July 1.

Raible said when we want to give him to. Does July 1 give him enough time?

Chavoustie said it could be July 15. You have to wait for the snow to melt and hopefully he has themoney in the bank after this holiday season.

Raible said he would go to the end of July.

O' Flaherty said to do July 31.

Krob asked what he is supposed to do by then.

Chavoustie said he is to have the water and sewer connected and complete.

Hardy said this is the only piece of the puzzle that is missing, is to get his Certificate of Occupancy.

Blair said he is operating under a temporary CO.

Chavoustie said because he doesn' t have water and sewer. Other than that, he has restrooms and

everything in the building. He just needs to connect.

Hardy said the previous CUP was just for a certain timeframe so that he could be open for the holidaysonly.

Chavoustie said yes.

Hardy said this would allow him to continue to stay open until that deadline.

Blair said he thought at their last meeting the Board agreed to grant him a temporary CO so he couldstay open and collect his donations.

Raible said he thought that was a good idea was to give him until July 31.

Chavoustie asked if there was any public comment on this. There was no comments.

Raible moved to approve the resolution and agreement subject to having water and sewer connected andfor a one year period. Hardy seconded. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Mayor Paul Chavoustie, Trustee Cathy Tindle, Trustee Josh Hardy, Trustee NataschaO'Flaherty, Trustee Nick Raible.

GRAND COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT UPDATE / STEPHANIE RALPH

6: 11 PM

Chavoustie introduced the agenda item.

Stephanie Ralph, Library Director, updated the Board on current and future happenings at the GranbyLibrary.

DISCUSSION OF A POSSIBLE ROW ACQUISITION AT 97 W. DIAMOND AVENUE / TOWN

MANAGER

6:25 PM


Blair said this was a discussion item that came up earlier. He believed that Krob might have better

information on this.

Krob said his understanding is that the owner of this property is asking the Town to convey part of theTown' s ROW to them. As he understood their situation, there is a small piece of their house that


encroaches onto the Town' s ROW. Theirs is, by no means, the only property in Town that encroachesupon the Town' s ROW. As a result, primarily of improvement in surveying as well as in the past, somepeople just built without being too careful about where they were building. The Town has several pieces

ofproperty that encroach upon the Town' s ROW. It is really a policy decision for the Board about whatit wants to do about those encroachments. The position that the Town Board has taken previously, forthe last 20 years, is that the property is on the Town' s ROW, the law does not allow you to adverselypossess against the Town. So, at any time, the Town could require it to be removed. The Town Boards

have said that they don' t really see anything to be served by requiring that removal unless we have aspecific need for the ROW at the time. What Granby has done, and most of the other municipalities thatwe represent, is to grant the owner of the property what is called an encroachment license that says werecognize your property encroaches upon the Town' s ROW. We will allow that encroachment unless or

until the Town needs the property or unless or until the property is destroyed, removed, rebuilt so that itcan be relocated to where it is supposed to be. Previous Town Boards have not wanted to give up theTown' s ROW and Town ROWs are not really a piece ofproperty that you own. You own a ROW

through there so it is not like you can just convey this strip of property to them. The only way that thestatutes allow you to get rid ofROWs is by vacating it so you would have to vacate the ROW and then itbecomes attached to the adjacent property or a portion of the ROW.

O' Flaherty said, when you say vacate, that section of where this dwelling is or the entire ROW.

Krob said the vacation statute allows you to determine what part of a ROW you want to vacate. You

can vacate as much or as little as you want. The concern of previous Boards has been, if this is just a

small encroachment so it is OK, we will vacate the ROW and let them have that, what is the breakingpoint. What is a small encroachment that doesn' t matter and what is a bigger encroachment that does

matter and so they have always thought previously that the cleanest thing to do is to just draw a clearline that says it is the Town' s ROW, you can use it as long as you need it, unless the Town has a specificuse for it, or until the property falls down and is replaced. That is the background of it. You may wantto hear from the applicant.

Leah Bishop said she was representing the current owner. The issue was what is happening right now isthat her seller/owner is having a hard time getting insurance because there is one line in theencroachment license agreement that was given to him and so that is why he is asking for the Town tovacate the small portion of the property that is coming over.

O' Flaherty said he currently doesn' t have it or the new buyer can' t get the insurance.

Bishop said he current has it, it was very difficult. He called about 30 different insurance companies and

he was able to get insurance from one person. He just doesn' t want a problem like this when he goes to

sell the home.

Krob said so he has closed on the property and he did get the insurance.

Bishop said yes.

Krob said just so the Board knows, the encroachment license always requires that the Town be listed asan additional insured so that if somebody runs into that corner of the house, for example, and is injuredand they sue the property owner, technically, they were injured on the Town' s property so that is whythe Town is listed as an additional insured. There was language in the encroachment licenses for the

past because most of them involve commercial properties that refer to premises' liability insurance andhe explained that he probably could tweak that language some to make it clear that it could behomeowner' s liability insurance, but other than this one incident, none of the other encroachmentproperties have ever run into problems of not being able to get insurance.

Bishop said it was that one line.

Krob said if you want us to take a look at it and he is more than happy to talk to the insurance companiesabout what wording they would be comfortable with, that is fine. He thought it is important that if you

are going to allow people to encroach, that you make sure that the Town is insured.

Chavoustie said because we have several properties that are doing this, we can' t sell off or vacate.

Blair said there are a lot on Jasper.

Town of Granby

BOT Meeting Minutes


Hess said they need to be aware that they are going to be charged attorney fees also.

Bishop said they are aware of that. They just want this cleaned up so that when they do go to sell it isnot going to be a problem.

Krob said the problem is that if you sell it, it is gone forever and so he thought that if you are going toconsider doing any of these to talk to the public works folks to say do we need this. Could we everpossibly need this, does this make your job more difficult than others? That has been the hesitancy inthe past is, is it something that we might possibly need at some point and are you setting a precedent ofif you let one person do it, then you are probably going to need to let everybody do it.

O' Flaherty said right now we are setting a precedent that we are letting them, in some cases, fairlygrievously encroach on Town property. She personally finds these licenses rather messy and shethought the language when we granted this one ofjust well what just constitutes a tear down, is it aremodel if they leave one wall standing.

Krob said it is defined under the Town Code. It is usually a 50% destruction of property or more. That

part is defined. We never run into a problem of interpretation, it has always just been clear that it stays

for as long as the property stays and if the property goes away, then the encroachment license goesaway.

O' Flaherty asked ifwe have, historically, ever made people take the dwelling off.

Krob said Granby has never made anyone move the property. Grand Lake did on one occasion but that

was because the homeowner actually moved a pin so he could build his house further than he shouldhave. There we went to court and the court made him take a chain saw to about 2' of two stories of his

house and take it off. Granby has never done that. Granby has always said if it is not something that weneed right now, we are willing to let it encroach unless and until the Town needs it.

O' Flaherty said she would hate to be on this Board the day the Town actually needs it and then betalking to a homeowner if you have to...

Bishop asked does everybody who' s property is encroaching have the proper insurance because theseller whom she bought this property from did not have the proper insurance for the Town because therewas no ... and if somebody did hit that corner of the house, what would happen.

Krob said until this most recent transaction, the Town didn' t realize that there was an encroachment

there. What is happening is that the title companies and the surveying companies are getting more andmore precise so the title companies are picking up these encroachments and as they do, then they cometo the Town and say, this is on Town property, what can we do? It is not like the Town goes out and

surveys everything and says, these are all the encroachment properties. Mostly, the Town respondswhen somebody says they just found out that their house encroaches on your property.

Raible said he was looking at the map here with these three red lines. He was not sure what he was

looking at. How much land are we actually talking about?

Bishop said there is a roof line that goes over by 1. 2' and the actual part of the house goes over .2'. There is a retaining wall that also goes over and that goes over 10' but what we are really asking for isthe property line of the .2'. If they have to take off the retaining wall, they are happy to do that. We

realize that 10' is a lot but the .2, they would just like to get that cleared up.

O' Flaherty said she looks at it this way. She would be inclined, if they are willing to pay the attorney' sfees and the cost in order to vacate this encroachment, she thought it would be a very uphill challenge. You would have to show very good cause if you were going to use this corridor. It may have been thepolicy in the past 20 years. She just finds it very messy and she would hate to be on the Board the daywe have to tell someone you are going to have to shave off your roof or 2' of your house

Krob said that is the nice thing about the encroachment agreement. It has been acknowledged that there

are on the Town' s ROW and that they may be required to move it if the Town needs it. They havealready signed off on that and said they are OK with that. The case law is also pretty clear that you can' tadversely possess against the Town so it doesn' t really matter how long it was there even if there was anencroachment license. That is the situation he would hate to be in is if the Town were to say, " Oh, we

don' t have an agreement with you, but you need to know that is on Town property and we are going to

Town of GranbyBOT Meeting Minutes


make you take it off." This is way different because each of these people who have an encroachmentlicense know that they are encroaching, knows that it might have to be moved in case the Town needsthat property so he didn' t think you would be in a situation where you would say to the landowner,

Surprise, surprise, you have to move the property." They have already signed an agreement that saysthat.

Bishop said because it is such a small amount, do you think that you guys could take into considerationabout vacating that .2.

Raible said they are talking a matter of inches.

Chavoustie asked what the other members thought.

Blair asked if it matter that is it still going to be a non -conforming structure on the property because itdoesn' t meet any setbacks.

Krob said it would still be non -conforming so that if it ever was torn down or burned down, it wouldhave to be moved and set back. If that happened and you vacated it, you wouldn' t get the ROW back. You would still have lost it.

Chavoustie said it is a little porch, pretty much.

Bishop said it is an entry.

Chavoustie said there are the survey fees and the filing fees and the attorney' s fees and all of that, ratherthan trimming it back.

Bishop said yes.

O' Flaherty asked if insurance was more expensive to get as a result.

Bishop said yes.

Hardy said his concern would be if they were to vacate something like this, that could open up a wholebarrel with other issues that we may come across as far as are we splitting hairs on .2' versus 1' versus

10'. If we do have a lot of properties that are within the ROWs, then this could be a much bigger

problem down the road. Everybody is going to want to vacate.

Raible said he thought the Board should deal with that on an individual basis.

O' Flaherty asked if this was the solution to the problem or has a can of worms already been opened byhaving this practice of giving these licenses. To her, if she looks at a cleaner title, if she is buyingproperty, she would want it to be clean without the license.

Chavoustie said on the real estate side, he thought the license is pretty clearly stated what it does andwhat it doesn' t do. It acknowledges from the insurance side.

Bishop said it is not just the insurance, because we are not sure how this is going to be handled if there isa loan. Her client paid cash for it so there was no loan but she thought underwriting would also red flagthis as well making it a harder property to sell because of the license agreement. That is why it is worththe survey and the attorney fees for him to see if we can vacate that small portion of the land just to havethis title cleared.

Krob asked if he was still going to have the problem with the loan because he is in the setback.

Bishop said ?

Blair said he has had three other properties that are currently trying to sell, one of them that is having aproblem with zoning because they are zoned HGB and it is a single family house and it is not permittedand the other two are because they are within the setback.

Krob said honestly, these are not problems that the Town has created. These are all people that put their

building either in the setback or on the ROW. It is unfortunate that it is a small amount.


Hardy said your buyer knew about this encroachment prior to buying the property.

Bishop said yes. The seller had no idea.

Chavoustie said it is an amazingly cool little house.

Tindle said it has sold quite a few times so she was just wondering why it never had an issue before withthat.

Bishop said most likely the lender for the previous times never required a survey or an ILC or did thetitle company, so none of these issues came up until we did an ILC.

Tindle said she agreed with the encroachment license agreement at this point in just looking at thehistory of the house. You never know. Like Hardy say, if we have a bunch of these and we don' t haveall these encroachment licenses for protection by that, but if you give them, then the guy behind CityMarket couldn' t get his 10' or whatever he wanted.

Raible said they should be done on an individual basis. The fact that we do one has no bearing onanything else in his opinion.

Tindle said she just thought it will come up more.

O' Flaherty said just looking ... one other thought. While she would be inclined to say clean it up andvacate it, try on a go forward basis to be more clear and actually force to take a chain saw and really staywithin their properties, her only concern on this one is let' s say the school acquired property behind theschool to expand, since it is a road ROW if they wanted to widen the road, and we vacate that for thatparcel, that would always remain tight, just looking at the visuals. That would probably be her onlyconcern. She would be leaning towards vacating but just right now to get into the middle school, shedidn' t know if road could continue.

Blair said it dead ends into the middle school.

Hess said across the street from there, there is a straight drop off into those other houses so there arethree along there.

Hardy said basically from Raffety Park across the street.

Hess said one of those front doors is right at the drop off.

Chavoustie said one of those garages almost the cross the street a little bit is inches either within theROW.

O' Flaherty said she agreed with Krob that the current license is very clear but that doesn' t mean whensomeone is faced with having to clean it up, they wouldn' t be in front of this Board or their attorneywouldn' t be writing us even though it is crystal clear it is not going to solve the headache, again that tiswhy she would be inclined to say clean it up and on a go forward basis, try to keep a more careful eye onwhere the encroachments are happening and nip them in the bud.

Raible said the decision is whether we continue it as is or vacate that.

Krob said the question is just is the Board willing to vacate that portion. There is just this one request in

front of you right now is to vacate that piece.

Raible moved to vacate that little 2- 3" piece ofproperty.

Chavoustie asked if there was any public comment on this.

Lance Badger asked if it could be a revocable easement agreement.

Krob said you are less likely to get a vested right in a license than you are in an easement, so that why itmakes it more clear that if the Town needs it, the Town can take it.

Badger asked if the issue to the applicant was the insurance costs.

Town of Granby

BOT Meeting MinutesJanuary 8, 2019Page 8

Bishop said the issue is that they purchased the home, they are going to be here for a year, it is whenthey go to sell it. They just want to get this cleared up because they had such a hard time gettinginsurance with this license agreement because of the one phrase, additional insured.

Badger said they do that all the time so he didn' t know why it was so hard.

Bishop said the way that the license agreement was written out, it was written out as an automobilepolicy. We went to every insurance company here in Town and nobody said yes.

Krob said it was written out as a commercial policy, not as an automobile policy because the previousone that we did was for a commercial property. He is more than happy to work with the insurancecompany to make it clear that it is homeowners liability insurance that the Town is to be added tobecause his experience is that by adding the Town as an additional insured on an insurance policydoesn' t cost anything.

Bishop said it was just very difficult to get the insurance and she thought her client' s first choice wouldbe to vacate the land and if that gets voted against, then possibly rewriting this license agreement tomake every insurance company happy, but the majority of them, but he would like to vacate it is what hewas hoping for.

Chavoustie said he would love to say yes. He is in real estate and all that, but he thought it was going toopen up a can of worms. He didn' t know what else is out there. There are a few, but he didn' t know...

Hess said there is more than a few. She asked how vacating this .2' solve the setback issue.

Krob said it really doesn' t. That would be something that would have to still be addressed. They aredefinitely encroaching into the setback.

Blair said it is in R- 1.

Hess said then it is a 20' setback.

Blair said the house can remain, it is will be a non -conforming use until it would need to be rebuiltbecause it gets destroyed.

Krob said that is why sometimes you run into problems with the finance company.

Chavoustie said Raible made a motion. Is there a second?

O' Flaherty said on this one, since she is friends with Bishop, and she is the one presenting today, shewill not vote on this.

Krob said you are still looking for a second. It dies for a lack of a second.

Chavoustie said we do want to help. It could open up a whole can of worms and then even ifwe say, OK, we will do that, because it is a ridiculous amount of land, but you are still not conforming to thesetbacks.

Bishop asked if it was possible to work with you guys so that we can reword the license agreement so itis ok with all the insurance companies.

Chavoustie said we can be cooperative if you get a new buyer that says they need help. Granby istypically cooperative.

Krob said just have the insurance agent that you are working with give him a call and they can talk aboutwhat language will work for them.

Bishop said the best step is to work with Krob directly.

Krob said yes.

Bishop asked if there were attorney fees associated with that.

Town of Granby


Krob said it is up to the Board.

Chavoustie said they would make it easy.

Krob said the change that we are talking about making is to make it clear that what the Town is lookingfor is a homeowner' s policy, not a commercial policy if it is a residence and all the Town wants is to belisted as additional insured. He would suggest that the Town probably pay the fees that would beinvolved which would be pretty minimal because we will put that change in all the future encroachmentlicense agreements.

O' Flaherty said the only cost to your client would be recording the new license agreement.

APPROVAL OF THE BUDGETED VEHICLE PURCHASE / TOWN MANAGER

6: 49 PM


Blair discussed the options with the Board.

After discussion, Tindle moved to approve the vehicle purchase from High Country Motors. Hardyseconded. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Mayor Paul

Chavoustie, Trustee Cathy Tindle, Trustee Josh Hardy, Trustee Natascha O'Flaherty, Trustee NickRaible.

APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE GRANBY RANCH FILING 17 / TOWN

MANAGER

6: 52 PM


Blair said this was an item that came up at our meeting in December. This has been an outstanding itemfor a while. The Board asked that we notify Granby Ranch about the fees that are due and outstandingitems related to Filing 17. There was a letter sent in by Granby Ranch asking for an extension for Filing17 which they have the right to ask for. Lance Badger is here to take any questions or comments on it. They did drop off a check for the Granby Sanitation Fees and also for the water quality fees. Those fees

have been paid. He asked if they have any questions for Krob or him.

Lance Badger, Granby Realty Holdings, said that the letter requested an extension for a year which hethought was protocol. We don' t need a full year. He would like to get this thing taken care of. There

are a few items that need to be taken care of. Clearly, the two payments today go a long way to resolvingthat. There is a third payment which is to the school district. We met with the school district today.

Part of their formula for calculating the fee is based on recent sales data. They have asked for somesales figures over this last year so we are compiling that. Once we have that and they concur with that, then we will be able to write the check to the Town that will eventually go to them. There is a water

rights dedication and that is going to require him to sit down with the water attorney from Granby Ranchand with Krob to just make sure that we do that process. It has been awhile since Granby Ranch hasdone any water rights dedications. We want to make sure that process is intact. There is also an old

water agreement that we have to check from 2012 that ties into this process as well. He just needed to

be able to sit down and concur with Krob on that process and then he thought they could make thededication. In terms of the SIA, there are just some blanks that need to be filled in there and he assumedthat required Dave Kotz to just reconfirm the engineer' s estimate from that original Filing 17 and theadjust it to current figures. That was it on that list. He didn' t think there was anything more there.

Chavoustie asked about one of the items.

Krob said that was the fire district.

O' Flaherty asked what the extension of one year represent or whatever time you are asking for.

Badger said he was told that a 12 month extension. We don' t need that, we can make it in six months.

He imagined they would get this taken care of much sooner than that.

O' Flaherty said she had a few concerns in looking at the documents. This agreement was signed

December 17, 2015. All improvements were supposed to be completed within 4 years of the date of that


agreement. It seems like the agreement is completely outdated. From the various simple things of GRH

notice is still going to Kyle Harris, the former CEO. It references the roads. Kotz, on his major issues,

highlighted the gravel roads and the cost ofmaintaining the gravel roads, but then he waived his concernbecause Headwaters would be maintaining those roads but now that parcel of land has been annexed intoGRMD. GRMD has severed its relationship with Headwaters so the funding structure, as it wasenvisioned in this agreement doesn' t exist anymore. It also contemplated, Kotz' issues, said this project

shouldn' t really proceed until the drive was paved. It was also not clear to her on his other concern if

the surety for the 12" water line was placed. It seems like a lot of things that were red flagged then are

certainly red flagged now. That would be causing her concern to continue this versus starting on a freshslate.

Badger said the same issues, the same design, everything would come back in almost identical. He

wanted to address the issues about Headwaters and GRMD. While the property was included in GRMD, it is no different than where you live. The roads are in Headwaters. The roads are actually maintainedat the moment through GRC through the larger structure of the ability of either the HOA and/or theMetro District.

O' Flaherty said not currently. There is no metro district funds, but again, when they talk in thisagreement that the funding for the road maintenance is in place, it is not in place. It is temporarily inplace since there are no mils available for the road maintenance. The HOA is in essence providing aback door tax. She was just looking at this and it seems like a clean agreement from scratch would seemto make more sense to her.

Badger asked if she as talking about a revised SIA, is that what you are looking at.

O' Flaherty said she thought the SIA definitely needs to be revisited. Chavoustie is probably moreequipped to speak to real estate development so she will defer to her thoughts. Those were the issues

that immediately.....

Chavoustie said he thought those areas needed attention for sure, they need to be cleaned up. Then, a

definitely shorter period, quite a bit shorter than 12 months, he thought and then whatever items need tobe cleaned up, completed, conditions, proof of payment of school fees, various things like that. Those

things all need to be addressed.

Badger said he agreed.

O' Flaherty said obviously, we would have to move the completion date because she can' t imagine thiswould be ready in December of 2019.

Badger said no.

Raible said there was an issue here from Ron Thompson, Fire Chief, regarding the width of the road. He

didn' t really understand. He is basically saying the road is not wide enough to turn around.

Badger said the engineering concerns were addressed and that was why it was approved and that is whyKotz signed off on the construction drawings for the Town. He didn' t know if there was a variance, per

say, but at the time this was approved, there was also the4th Amendment to the PDOD which was also

approved and that modified the design standards at that time which said some of these issues that wereraised were addressed and approved through that PDOD Amendment. Not know what precisely what

comment you are looking at, his understanding was all the engineering was satisfied, hence the platbeing approved and Kotz signing off on it.

Krob said to let him understand the status of the documents we have in front of us. One of them is the

Subdivision Improvements Agreement that looks like it has been signed by Kyle Harris but not by theTown. Is that your understanding as well?

Badger said yes, but he thought, as O' Flaherty said, it is going to require updating the dates and so on.

Krob said his understanding ofwhat Badger is asking the Board, if you pay the $42,000 that the Town

simply passes through to Granby Sanitation District and the Water Quality Fees that you are asking theTown Board to extend this for another six months to finish completing the rest of these conditions, oneof which is preparation and execution of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement acceptable to the Town

to include but not necessarily limited to the following and then it lists some specific items. You paid the


fee, then that doesn' t necessarily assure that the plat gets recorded. That just gives you six months to

finish fulfilling the conditions that are set forth in Section E. Is that what you are asking for?

Badger said he would assume that if six months came by and this Board elected not to continue that wewould receive a reimbursement for those fees.

Krob asked why?

Badger said because the fees are tied to the impacts of the sanitation, the impacts of the school and thewater quality.

Krob said if those entities are fine with releasing those funds, he didn' t imagine the Board would have aproblem, but you have to understand that $42,000 is not money the Town is going to have. That is

going to go right to the Sanitation District and the same thing with the school fees, so if it did fall apart, you would need to go talk to those entities about getting that money back.

Badger said he would hope that it didn' t fall apart, that we would all be moving towards closure.

Krob said but, just so it is clear, what you are asking for is six months to then fulfil the rest of theconditions.

Badger said sure. He thought they could do that. He would think that they could do that. The one item

he didn' t have a handle on is the water dedication fees.

Krob said the water dedication, just so the Board understands, Granby Ranch and the Town own parts ofwhat is called the W 18 81 Water Right. When we first agreed to allow the development of GranbyRanch, Granby Ranch asked, instead of us just conveying that W 18 81 Water Right to you, can we holdon to it and convey just a little piece for each subdivision and each lot as we develop them. There is a

formula that says for each lot that the Town approves, Granby Ranch has to convey to the Town a littlepiece and it is even set out in a formula, of that W1881 Water Right. All that really has to happen is thatwe have to count up how many lots were created and that is how many pieces of W18 81 Water Rightneeds to be conveyed and that can all be done in one very simple water deed. That is not really acomplicated analysis, but it is something that we would need to sit down and look at the agreement anddo.

Badger said he thought it tied back to the 2012 Agreement which we need to address separately.

O' Flaherty said as we look at this and try to clean this up and move it forward and she knew it has beena big priority for the developer at the HOA meetings the last few years, it has always been that they aregoing to be built this summer and years go by, but just as a point of clarification, has the lien to Cody forPremier Earthworks been cleared, the $200,000?

Badger said yes, as far as he knows. He hasn' t seen any lien show up.

O' Flaherty said in our packet, it showed that there was a notice of lien for $203, 000 outstanding.

Badger asked what the date was on that.

O' Flaherty said it was a 2015 date.

Badger said that has been cleared up.

O' Flaherty said a couple of things that concern her is since this was first filed in 2015, it wassubsequently put into GRMD. GRMD has, this year, retained new legal counsel. It is now homeowner

controlled, they are updating their service plan. Under the current service plan, while the board

wouldn' t have to, but if they lost control, it says the infrastructure for this land would be financed orcould be financed through district money, obviously there are some changes for the service plan, whiletheir meeting minutes specifically exclude the district from any financial responsibilities forinfrastructure on this land, that service plan has not been updated. We only have minutes to that effect. She has serious concerns of the extension. She guessed a lot has changed since 2015. This list isn' t this

long. She was curious of why three years later, it is not done. Her concern arises out of things like in

Filing 10. In Filing 10, the COs they weren' t going to allow them to issue CO' s and sell the land untilthe roads were built. The developer, at that time, Cipriani, argued that she could not build the roads


until she had the money from the lot sales. Then the lots were sold, an extension was given, another

extension was given and here we are a decade later, looking at millions of dollars of road repairs. She

thought when they kicked projects forward and the fundamentals of the deal change, she hesitates togive an extension, she would rather see a clean deal from scratch. You tell her, Chavoustie, if that

makes sense or is that a redundancy.

Chavoustie said you could update the SIA to reflect that no financial obligation shall be passed on to theother taxpayer districts. You could make it as tight as you want or we could say, no, come back andstart over. They still have the body of the work that was approved, but it would have to start over withreviews with MPEI, Fire District, everybody. It would all have to be reviewed again. It certainly takesmore time. If he is putting on his developer hat and not mayor hat, developer hat says clean this up andmake sure that everyone is on Board. This is a better way to go than to just scrap it and start over. It is

still a good Board discussion and public input on whether we extend this or not.

O' Flaherty said her other concern is we have Badger here on behalf of GRH, we have been told viacorrespondence as a Board, that there is a pending sale in approximately a month, while this would bebinding on their successors, we don' t know who we are dealing with. If they can post these sureties, itdoes seem that in a few weeks' time, we are going to be dealing with somebody else, potentially.

Badger said, as he stated in his letter, it is the intension of the purchasing party or the new party topursue this project as it is designed and it is their number one intention, basically in terms of a newsubdivision in addition to all the other things that they intend to do. In terms of answering, there is anagreement between the districts and the developer as it relates to that the GRMD District will not be

responsible for any of these infrastructure improvements. That is memorialized in that agreement. That

is not just minutes to a meeting.

O' Flaherty asked if he was referring to the settlement agreement.

Badger said yes. That is memorialized and the Filling 10 issue, as you refer to, Filing 10 did get built. They did have failures up there. They went in and fixed some of those failures, that failed and hence thenew design and the new direction of where it is today. We understand that there were settlement issues

up there. Why those settlement issues occurred, there is a lot of science that can determine differentthings, but the reality is, is that there is an effort underway to fix the roads. There is intention underwayto move forward on this plan. He is here to tell them that he will work with the Town to move this

forward as quickly as he can. Maybe it doesn' t take six months and they can do it quicker but he will doeverything that he can to move it forward and bring it into closure. He doesn' t know why it wasn' trecorded when it was approved. There were different people at Granby Ranch then. His intention right

now is to put this thing to bed and move it forward.

Hess said it wasn' t recorded because we never received the money for Granby Sanitation and all theother conditions weren' t completed. Their agreement with the Town is once it is approved, we have

three days to give them the money and we never received the money from the developer and the Townwasn' t willing to front $42,000.

Badger said he understands that. He didn' t know why that decision was made the way it was made.

Chavoustie asked Krob if there ... he really wants to see the sureties get brought up to date for the other3, 000,000 shortfall, whatever that amount is. Is there a way to tie this to that? They are two different

issues.

Krob said they are two different issues, but there is no obligation on the Board to approve this. Whether

you want to approve this or not, you could even put it off until your next meeting. You can' t directlycorrelate it to the other one because that is a separate interest, but on the other hand, if all you areconcerned about is, is there the financial wherewithal to do the things that remain to be done in Filing 17and you have concerns about whether there is the financial wherewithal to do the things that need to bedone with those other filings, there is a connection there. They are different projects, but it is the samedeveloper.

Raible said we have the president of Granby Ranch Metro District here. He asked if Matt Girard had

any comments that he wanted to make.

Matt Girard said just to say to Chavoustie' s point, you have Badger up here representing GRH. He is

asking for a time extension on a certain agreement. This is the same GRH who is currently in open


violation of an existing agreement, openly saying that they are not going to provide the surety bondsuntil the sale. In default and non-compliance of that agreement. He didn' t know why the Board, to beperfectly honest, would consider a new SIA or a new agreement or a time extension or anything untilthat same party is in compliance with that agreement. If it waits for the sale and they up the bonds, fine, then reconsider it then. He didn' t know why the Town would consider this issue since it is the sameexact developer who is in violation and saying that they are not going to provide the bonds in a timelymanner.

Chavoustie said ifwe continue this, has this expired so to speak or do we need to something to hold itover in its present state until this sale and the surety bond is made right.

Krob said he thought that it would have arguably would have expired but you now have a request. Since

they filed the request and that request is pending, then that holds it open until you make a decision.

O' Flaherty said, their request, even though it is expired holds it open until that decision.

Chavoustie said they wouldn' t have to start all over but if everything falls into place the way we allhope, but he would have to clean up the SIA, update the various things that need to be done, but itwouldn' t have to go back out to the reviewing agencies and start fresh ifwe continue this.

O' Flaherty said to her, if we give them six months, she looks at these agenda items, three, six, nine andten, the water probably sitting down with the water attorneys and rewriting the SIA are probably themost time consuming, it didn' t get done in three years and now the structure at Granby Ranch with thechange in the homeowner owner control of GRMD and the relationship to Headwaters, the fundingsourcing for road maintenance has changed. The financial wherewithal, the point that Girard brings to

the table to her, is valid so to her, she really is pained because she really doesn' t want to see thedeveloper redo and go through the planning process again, but again, it looks like in a few weeks, wecould have different parties to the agreement. She would rather start from scratch with the parties that

reflect the current structure, the current financing. She thought as a Board, they have a duty to enforceagreements in a timely manner. When she looks at the GRMD Service Plan, that originally capped debtload or the tax load for taxpayers at 50 mils, developer acknowledges that we needed 22 for debt, 100mils of debt was issues. Those taxpayers are drowning in debt and now the things that were supposed tobe covered by those special district mils have to be carried by the HOA. She thought that was a direct

reflection of not closely holding developers accountable to agreements and enforcing them on a Townlevel timely. To her, there are just so many deltas here. The structure has changed, the parties are

changing, she didn' t see what the Board would extend this.

Chavoustie said he was not really saying to extend it other than, he is not saying to grant GranbyRanch' s request, just table the extension and then when the bond is where we need it to be for the roadsand then we will hear it and bring it back to life, bring this back to back. It could be the same night.

The sale happens, the bonds are there, and also on the agenda we made these other things right with

Filing 17, we checked all the boxes, paid everybody, here is our proof, and then they are off andrunning.

O' Flaherty asked if two weeks would give them enough time if we table it to the22nd

meeting.

Chavoustie said no, because he needs the sale to happen to bring the bond up. To him, they are separateissues but if you can' t make the bond right, you probably aren' t going to be able to build a subdivision.

O' Flaherty said you are looking at tabling this for three meetings to the second meeting in February. She would like to see it come before us with the parties that are actually going to be doing the projectwith an updated service plan from GRMD, with an updated correct SIA. Again this is a 2015

agreement. Just punting it towards the new buyer makes her really uncomfortable as a reason to table itwhich by default is an extension.

Girard said the other comment that he wanted to add is that Badger said the new owner, it is the

ownership structure that is changing, he believed, that is what we believe, is that Badger says the newowner wants to pursue Filing 17, so let the new owner pursue Filing 17 when the new owner comes onboard. Why extend this one, let them go back and do Filing 17.

Vince Major said he lives at 625 Cumulus and said their agreement right now is with the developer andthe Town, not with the new buyer. You need correct whatever deficiencies you have now with the

developer because you don' t know what is in those other agreements. You can hear people say they are

Town of Granby


going to do this and they are going to do that. You don' t know for sure. You haven' t seen thosedocuments. You need to correct now between the current developer and the Town.

Chavoustie said that was a good point.

O' Flaherty said her final point, she thought they knew where her position is, but a few more data points. We always talk about when the new buyer is and earlier we said we hope the new buyer, hope is not astrategy, she says that to her clients all the time, she looks at it that there could be a new buyer and wehope that the sale transpires as it is planned next month. What she knows from attending the GRMDBoard Meeting in December of 2017, it was disclosed that that there was a forbearance agreement inplace that ran at the end of February. She would hate to table this until there is a new buyer becausewhat if there is no new buyer. What if there is a foreclosure under a forbearance agreement. We don' tknow that. She was also troubled by the latest update in filings that the land in question right now has awrit of attachment. She was just reading, apparently, the lawsuit from Ms. Cipriani' s sister for

19, 000,000 is getting removed to federal court. The hearing date has been moved off, so these writs ofattachment encumber this property, it is messy. To her, to table it or to extend it, does not seem to

protect the taxpayers in Granby Ranch who are citizens of this Town.

Krob said the only comment he had is in terms of advising your clients based on hope, he is on theopposite end of that spectrum, he is always assuming the worst is going to happen and then what is theadvice to protect the Town assuming the worst happens. He refers to himself as that dark cloud that

always has to be there. In terms of Filing 17, if you assume it goes back to the bank for example. Is the

Town any worst off if it leaves it where it is now and it goes back to the bank versus if it gets rid of itand it goes back to the bank? He hasn' t really been able to articulate how it helps the Town' s position ifit is going to go back to the bank to eliminate the plat.

O' Flaherty said she thought it would give a new buyer, someone buys it out of foreclosure, it gets a newbuyer their discretion ofhow they want to use the land and they are not committed to that plat. Theydon' t have to vacate it. They can plat it as they see fit as they acquire the property.

Krob said if they acquire it, they can always say, they don' t see 17 going the way it is and we want youto vacate it.

Chavoustie said 17 hasn' t been approved. ( Note for the record: Filing 17 was approved, but notrecorded due to outstanding conditions.) We are not agreeing to it. His suggestion is not agreeing to

any of this but tabling it to the end of February that says there is a closing, all that, but at any time, hebelieved at the next meeting in February, we could say, sorry this didn' t happen the way we want it andit is going away. He didn' t see the downside to that. He thought it does have some. .... Also in the

interest of trying to make a sale, it is hard through all of the history here to see that we are going to see ashiny light and it is all going to work, but if that is getting ready to happen, he would rather not hinder anew buyer and say, by the way, the place that you are getting ready to buy and the first subdivision thatyou are going to build out has just been vacated. Is that going hinder a sale and then force it to worstcircumstances? He didn' t think that any of them know any of the ins and outs of that circumstance. Hedidn' t know how that we are just mimicking what Krob said. He didn' t know how we were worst off

carrying it as is and make sure that the surety bond gets done and those various things and we haven' tmade a promise to anybody until we know who the new buyer is and the SIA has been redrafted and allthat. He thought that only thing that he was trying to save is the administrative time and expense ofstarting all this over again, but again with the developer hat, it is certainly cleaner to be able to pick thisup at a later date, check all the boxes and get it done. That is not necessarily his mayor hat and sayingthis is the right decision. He could flip a coin in this instance but his No. 1 concern is to protect the

interest of Granby Ranch landowners, not necessarily Cipriani, and he doesn' t want to put Cipriani in abad situation where we have vacated a plat right before a sale. That to him, if he is a buyer, he would

say what is the Town' s attitude towards the rest of Granby Ranch and that is why he wished we wouldhave had a meeting with the buyer. We have never been contacted by a buyer. We haven' t met anyone.

He would be able to keep that stuff confidential. We could sign NDAs or whatever, but he wished he

had met and shook hands with someone.

O' Flaherty said that would change her opinion quite a bit.

Badger asked if that was feasible.

Krob said to have a non -disclosure with a public entity? Yes.


Badger asked for that purpose.

Krob said yes. We couldn' t take any action based on it but yes, on a temporary basis for purposes ofitems that are subj ect to negotiation, then yes, you can.

Badger asked if that non -disclosure was limited to the individuals or to the (Lance was in the audienceand couldn' t pick up what he said at this point).

Krob suggested that you do the NDA with just a designated individual.

Chavoustie said it would be the same as an executive session. An NDA could tighten it up and give youmore confidence but it would be nice to say and all he could reveal was that he shook hands withsomeone and he believes they are real.

Badger said he would carry that back.

Hardy said he would definitely help them by his perspective as well just on the standpoint that there areso many questions and so many knowns right now and that is why he thought O' Flaherty had a goodpoint because we don' t know what is going on, we don' t know who is coming in, so we are betting oneverything that we don' t know anything about. That is what raises more questions in his head. He

would hate to see the deal go through and it is vacated or whatever and it is not tied in with the

agreement.

Raible asked Krob if those were the Board' s options, approve the extension, vacate the plat, kick it downthe road for a couple ofweeks.

Krob said yes, he would say those are their three options, is to approve it, deny it or postpone it. There

are variations within that. You could approve it subject to certain conditions and all of that.

Chavoustie asked if he thought that postponing it, does that put the homeowners at any greater risk thanif we vacated the plat.

Krob said no, he was trying to think of what is the risk that it would expose them to if you just continuethis until sometime in February and he can' t really identify anything specific.

Raible asked in his opinion, if we vacated this, would that raise a red flag to a potential new buyer.

Krob said that is probably not a legal question, that is more question for the real estate people, itprobably wouldn' t encourage the buyer but that is more common sense.

O' Flaherty said to Raible, you and I have both been at the meetings in the two summers prior where weheard these homes were going to be built before the fall, we have given them a three year window tocomplete this list and she thought to her the risk to homeowners is, is this a project that now in 2019 isas relevant as 2015. Is there still a market appetite for micro homes? Do homeowners agree that it will

help their property values to build this type of housing? To her, they are looking at something that israther dated. . We are going to be playing with new parties. To her, the idea that this GRMD Service

Plan has to come into place, that we have the correct parties and we have an SIA that is relevant, shethought she would differ from the Town Attorney in that these are the steps that we do to insure theowners at Granby Ranch that we are protecting their interests. Are we current with the parties? Are we

current with the agreements? That is why this troubled her a lot. She thought when they look at thecredibility of providing bonds, she agreed with the Town Attorney that this cannot be used as a leveragefor other agenda items, in getting sureties but when she looks at the need for sureties on this one for the12" water pipe and for the roads, the fact that it is coming from the same entity that just denied theTown' s 15 day demand letter for additional sureties for the four filings that we made in December, ittroubles her deeply and she didn' t think the Board was doing right by the homeowners. That being said, she disclosed at the beginning of the meeting that she is a homeowner in Granby Ranch, but she believethat Krob said because she is one of many, she can speak and vote on this, as a result, she would movethat we not extend this, she would like to see it come forward with the new buyer and come to the Boardfresh and be relevant at that time.

Tindle seconded.

Raible said he would like some clarification. Not extending, does that include postponing or does that


just denying it.

Krob said that would be not postponing, that would be just denying.

Chavoustie said that vacates the plat.

O' Flaherty said the plat has never been filed.

Blair said it has been approved with conditions, and the conditions just have not been fully met yet.

O' Flaherty said we have a first and a second.

Chavoustie said to essentially deny the extension.

Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Mayor Paul Chavoustie, Trustee Cathy Tindle, Trustee Josh Hardy, Trustee Natascha O'Flaherty, Trustee Nick Raible.

Chavoustie said the body of the work is done so it can be refreshed. He didn' t think the confidence isthere. If the new buyer says he is freaked out by the Town because they just denied this subdivision, hecould assure them that we are willing to look at things and work with them but we need to know whothey are and have confidence in them.

Badger said he understood.

APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS:

7: 32 PM


A) 2019- 01- 08B, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ANNUALLY A PUBLIC PLACE FORPOSTING NOTICES AND ESTABLISHING A MEETING PLACE / TOWN CLERK

Hess explained that this is an annual resolution per the state statutes.

Raible moved to approve as presented. Hardy seconded. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll callvote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Mayor Paul Chavoustie, Trustee Cathy Tindle, Trustee Josh Hardy, Trustee Natascha O' Flaherty, Trustee Nick Raible.

B) 2019- 01- 08C, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2016 COLORADO MUNICIPALRECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS FOR THE TOWN OFGRANBY, COLORADO / TOWN CLERK

Hess explained that this is the Town of Granby' s Record Retention Schedule.

Hardy moved to approve as presented. Tindle seconded. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll callvote ( summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Mayor Paul Chavoustie, Trustee Cathy Tindle, Trustee Josh Hardy, Trustee Natascha O'Flaherty, Trustee Nick Raible.

C) 2019- 01- 08D, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2019 AMOUNT OF DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAMS ESTABLISHED OCTOBER 14, 2003 THROUGH THE GRAND COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND IN 2011 FOR THETOWN OF GRANBY / FINANCE DIRECTOR

Hess explained that this is a resolution that is done every year.

Tindle moved to approve. O' Flaherty seconded. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call votesummary: Yes = 5). Yes: Mayor Paul Chavoustie, Trustee Cathy Tindle, Trustee Josh Hardy, Trustee

Natascha O' Flaherty, Trustee Nick Raible.

DISCUSSION OF THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE APPLICANTS / TOWN CLERK7:37 PM


Hess said her thought was to have the Public Safety Committee go through the applications and pick ajudge or the committee could interview if they so desire. She will contact the members on thecommittee to get a meeting date.


O' Flaherty said she would interested on helping the committee.

CONSENT AGENDA

7: 38 PM

Chavoustie introduced the Consent Agenda which contained the following: Accounts Payable for

JANUARY 8, 2019 and Minutes for DECEMBER 11, 2018.

Raible moved to approve as consented. Hardy seconded. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll callvote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Mayor Paul Chavoustie, Trustee Cathy Tindle, Trustee Josh Hardy, Trustee Natascha O'Flaherty, Trustee Nick Raible.

COMMITTEE & STAFF REPORTS

7:35 PM

Administrative / Chair Shaw / Trustees Johnson and HardyTown Clerk Report

Finance Director Report

Shaw was absent. Hess said she didn' t have anything.

Blair said the final sales tax reports say that we hit over the $3, 000,000 mark. That is almost an 8. 9%

increase and we came in $140,000 over the projected budget for 2018.

Economic Development / Chair Hardy / Trustees Raible and Johnson

Chamber — reports are sent to the Board when received

Hardy said he had nothing to present.

Public Safety / Chair Johnson / Trustees Hardy and Trustee TindleChiefs Report — No report received

Sgt. Jonathan Stark said that their department is doing awesome even though they are short-staffed. Kraker is doing a good job. They have interviews tomorrow.

Public Works / Chair Tindle / Trustees Shaw and O' FlahertyDirector' s Report

Tindle said she talked to Joel Moore and they have been e -mailing back and forth. Everything is goingwell.

Recreation / Chair Raible / Trustees O' Flaherty and TindleDirector' s Report

Raible said the Julie Martin' s report is very comprehensive.

Water / Chair O' Flaherty / Trustees Shaw and Raible

Superintendent' s Report

O' Flaherty said that everything is moving forward.

Mayoral Update / Mayor Chavoustie

Chavoustie said Sun Communities' representative is moving in an office at the Visitor' s Center. Theyare excited to launch the project and it is moving right along and is on schedule. They have 40,000' of

pipe in the ground. They are slated to open in 2019 for the RV and Park Homes.

Town Manager' s Report

Blair handed out his report to the Board. There is a tour with SGM this week. There will be a PC

Meeting in February. 377 E. Agate owners are doing their due diligence. He said downtown is verypopular right now. Granby Garage possibly will open in February. The surveyors have been out

surveying for the parking improvements. The Agate Traffic Study should be complete in 1. 5 weeks. He

will have the downtown quarterly update for the next meeting.

Town Attorney' s Update / Scott Krob

Krob said as you know we sent a 15 -day notice letter to Granby Ranch regarding three differentsubdivision improvement agreements to tell them that they needed to increase the bond based oninformation provided by the Town' s Engineer. We initially received a response from them saying thatwe sent the letter to the wrong address. We pointed out to them that the address is set forth in the SIA.

It was sent to the correct address and if they didn' t change it, that was their error but in case they didn' thave it, here is another copy of the letter.


O' Flaherty asked if we sent them to the registered agent.

Krob said no, we sent it to the one that is in the contract and then we e- mailed it also. Theyacknowledged that they received them. The 15 days has expired. They have indicated that they don' tintend to increase the bond amount until they close on the property with the new buyer. The SIAs saythat if the performance guarantee is not timely furnished, then development activities, including but notlimited to, the issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy may be suspended by the Townpending compliance therewith. Since the language in the SIAs may be suspended, his recommendationis that the Board approve a motion that exercises that discretion and says they are suspending thedevelopment activities. It would be a motion to suspend development activities in connection with thethree SIAs that we sent them notice on.

Raible said he had a comment on that. Building permits, yes. Certificates of Occupancy, for example, he knows a family that wants to move in in February. Should they be penalized by not being able to geta CO?

Chavoustie asked if this affects other people that have already purchased land.

O' Flaherty said yes, it does. She agreed with Raible' s comment. In looking at the SIA, and she broughtit to Blair' s attention, under 9A, do we not have to first send them the 30 day letter with the notice of thebreach saying that they haven' t provided the security under 9A, if there is a breach, we have to givethem notice of the breach and give them a 30 day cure period. She would be very hesitant to proceedwith a motion to suspend before we have sent out this letter. She thought they should tick the 30 daysbut she gets the sense that Krob doesn' t think that letter is required.

Krob said no. You have an SIA and the SIA has a general breach provision that says if you breach anypart of this contract, then you have 30 days to cure it and then you are in breach and the Town can

pursue all equitable and legal remedies. Then, it also has a very specific section that talks about thebond that has a more specific remedy. The rule in construing contracts is that when you have a morespecific provision that governs over the more general. If you look at the bond provision, it is veryspecific and it says, you send them the letter. The letter should be a 15 day notice. If they don' t do it, then the remedy is that the Town may suspend the approvals pending compliance. He thought that theywere perfectly entitled at this point to exercise that authority if you want to, but it does require you toaffirmatively say that you want to do it. You can say that you want to suspend any further what they calldevelopment activities. You can decide that you want to suspend building permits only and allowcompletion of certificates of occupancy for projects that are already under construction. It is really up tothe Board. You need to decide what you want to do. You can do everything up to cutting off all of theirdevelopment activities.

Chavoustie said he didn' t want to penalize any Granby Ranch homeowners or landowners, but whatabout developer owned GRH/development lots, no CO, no permits so we don' t mess people up that arehoping to move in in February or hoping to break ground in March or April.

O' Flaherty said let' s be more specific. This one she did believe that they could tie together relating toyour question earlier, Paul. She asked Krob if this agreement allows us to also withhold approving newfilings until such sureties are met.

Krob said you have the authority to approve any further filings that are in these subdivisions, but theseagreements just relate to those three subdivisions. He didn' t think that they could go outside those.

O' Flaherty said those are lots that are still developer owned and largely now third party owned.

Krob said yes.

O' Flaherty said she agreed that it would not serve the purpose of enforcing this agreement to withholdCOs from third parties. That seems counterproductive.

Chavoustie said let' s say the property does go bankrupt. The worst case scenario and we said no more

permits, no more CO' s, we have crushed everybody. He would have to be really specific and say GRHowned lots cannot have permits or COs. We can' t hurt people that already own land out there that wantto build. It could sit in suspense for 2- 3 years if it is a foreclosure situation.

O' Flaherty said if you put that restriction on it, in a good way, it would only allow a developer or a


serious party because they would have to make good on the sureties. On the other hand, it would make

it so you couldn' t parcel it out of bankruptcy then because.....

Chavoustie said but GRH can up with the sureties and he has gotten bonds for developments before butif you get a $ 1, 000,000 bond, it costs you $50,000 in cash or whatever the ratio is. It might be moreexpensive than that. Say, they are $ 3, 000,000 short on their surety right now. It doesn' t cost that much

money to get your bond increased by $3, 000,000. It doesn' t cost the developer $3, 000,000 of real cash. It is just a percentage of that.

O' Flaherty asked if the Town responded to developer' s letter after our 15 day demand.

Krob asked if it was the one where they said we sent it to the wrong address. Yes. We sent them a

response saying that yes, it was to the right address.

Chavoustie said it is their issue to clear up.

Raible said Nathan Krob got back to them. He saw that.

O' Flaherty said we got another response where they are still saying....

Krob said no, that was the last response.

O' Flaherty said to her but maybe it is overkill, but would there be any harm under 9A, just to be out ofan abundance of caution to let them know, yes, we got your letter, you take the position that we should

wait for if and when there is a new buyer, but under 9A, under this provision, under the 15 day demandand under 9A, you are in breach just so that we don' t expose the Board that we have given them plentyof notice they are in breach. They have a time to cure. The way that she read 9A is that they have acure period.

Krob said they have a cure period under 3 which is 15 days. As he said, that is the more specific section

that addresses bonds. So, he didn' t think there is really any need to comply with 9. If you are just

looking for an excuse to give them some more time, he thought they could do that, but as far as shoringit up so that it is not subject to challenge, he didn' t think that they really gained much.

Raible said he liked Chavoustie' s idea because that gives the homeowners some assurance that if a new

developer is going to come in, the only way that they can develop those properties is to put the bonds inplace.

O' Flaherty said her phone is blowing up because the question that the homeowners on the hill want toknow is, are they going to be stuck paying for the roads if this bond isn' t procured? She asked if theycould take public comment.

Matt Girard said his opinion on the SIA is under 3B, as you say, a very specific requirement, that theonly thing that 3B allows you to do is to do those things, is to hold up building permits or COs. That is

it. If you want to take any other legal action, if this thing falls apart and you want to call the bonds, youare not allowed to under 3B. 3B allows you to do two things, that' s it. 9A allows you to take any other

legal action because now they are in breach. If you want to take any other legal action, his opinion is thatyou have to put them in default. 9A, give them the 30 days. All 3B gives you is to do those two things.

If you want to consider any other things, legally, in executive session, or what not, you have to followthe default in 9A.

Krob said other than to call the bond, what other actions do you think we should do.

Girard said to put a lien on the property, sue her in court, I don' t know, pick one.

O' Flaherty said you could vacate the development rights.

Girard said take legal action to protect the citizens.

Krob said realistically there are very few remedies that would be available to us.

Girard said so call the bonds.


Krob said you can' t really sue them for damages because the Town hasn' t been damaged. You couldn' t

seek specific performance because that just tells them to do what they already said they aren' t going todo. He is not sure that you gain that much. If you want to do a belt and suspenders approach, so thatfurther down the road, if you wanted to pursue some other remedy, you could. The message he received

from the Board originally is that we wanted to get this bond issue in place and do something as quicklyas possible. We have done that and he didn' t see that we need to delay now to do the 30 day notices. We could give them a 3 0 day notice on top of the 15 day notice that says, in addition to the remediesavailable under this section, now that you failed to produce the increase, you are in breach and so we

may exercise other remedies. That might not be a bad thing to add on..... .

Girard interrupted and said his only point is that without that letter you haven' t formally done the 30days under 9A. So, if the whole development were to crater and they were to walk and you didn' t wantto call the bonds, and prepare the roads and go after the developer for the difference which you are

allowed to do in the agreement, you are not allowed to do that unless you put them in default. He would

say that they have to do that in writing. Does it overlap, does it not overlap, that is a legal question butwithout saying specifically and referencing 9A of that agreement, you can' t take any other legal action.

Krob said there really aren' t that many that are available but he thought the policy question of the Boardis, what message you want to send to Granby Ranch. Do you want to say, this is the issue, it is theroads, this is the solution that is in there or do you want to make it a bigger issue. There again, it is a

policy question as far as what message you want to send and you may want to discuss it in executivesession, what message you want to send to Granby Ranch and its perspective buyer.

Chavoustie said that was his point with the other agenda item, was if we send the message, screw you,

Granby Ranch and we are not cooperating, what is a buyer going to do? A buyer is going to walk orreally think that they have a really uncooperative Town and again, they haven' t even contacted us. We

don' t know. If there is nobody out there, then that is really bad, but he has to assume ... Marise Cipriani

called him as did Lance Badger, and they didn' t reveal who it was but that they do have a real buyer. He

would rather communicate a message that maybe we are tough over here but we are trying to work on ithere but he does not want them to be able to move forward with a permit or a CO on developer ownedlots. That' s where he is willing to go with it right now. He believed that is where they are right now. He is a little afraid to ramp up so much pressure at this point in the deal because at the end of the deal, everybody is looking for a reason to get out. Buyers start to have a little buyer' s remorse before the deal

happens. Granby Ranch is a massive community. If it goes south, and we somehow gave the buyer

some second thoughts, he doesn' t like that. He doesn' t like sending that message.

Girard said he had two additional comments. One is that you are potentially helping someone thathasn' t come in and asked you. You haven' t met that owner, right? That is challenging from hisperspective. The other thing is, he is not saying that the Board has to take legal action right now, he issaying to put them on notice that they are in default to allow you the option to do legal. He is not saying

that they are going to file a lien on the property or you are going to call the bond. He agrees with him.

That would raise a red flag. Silence is approval. They have come back and said that they are not goingto provide these. That is now in default. That is not taking legal action, that is just putting them onnotice.

Chavoustie said but it is a piece of paper in the due diligence file of the buyer.

Girard said then they can come in and talk to you.

Chavoustie said the Town is ramping this up substantially. This is a much bigger deal.

O' Flaherty said then it would be getting you to talk to the new buyer.

Chavoustie said again, without knowing anything, he doesn' t .....

O' Flaherty said she would love to see a sale go through. She would like to facilitate it. She sits her and

she represents the property owners in Granby. There are 800 property owners. There could be millions

of dollars on the hook for fixing these roads. She, again, she hears and she likes what she hears from

Matt Girard in the sense that we don' t have to do anything, but this gives us the option to call the bond.

Chavoustie said we have already noticed them. He gets it.

O' Flaherty said to have more options on the table, it is an ugly due diligence letter.


Chavoustie said he is worried about unintended consequences that potentially....

O' Flaherty said she also thought hearing about the current litigation with the developer is moving intoFederal Court and there is $ 19,000,000 plus at play claimed by the sister' s bohemian entity, shesuspected that will put a wrench on it because right now there are writs ofattachment on the propertythat we are discussing. We can only deal with the facts as they are. She would love to see this close onthe projected date. She thought they owed it to the homeowners to make sure they have the option to getthat road surety and get their roads fixed that are failing. Raible lives on one of those roads. To say theyare failing is a gross understatement.

Girard said the only other think that he would add is he thought to truly protect the residents up there, why have an agreement if you are not going to follow it. That subject was raised earlier. The agreement

says that if they don' t provide it in 15 days, you can do x, y or z. If they don' t provide it, you put themin default. You have to follow the agreement. Why have a clause for default if you are not going tofollow it. Why have a clause for 30 day notice to cure if you aren' t going to follow it. Follow the

agreement but that requires written notice.

Krob said they are following the agreement because we are following the specific part of the agreementthat addresses the specific default that is at stake which is a default in posting the bond. The agreement

says that the remedy for the default in posting the bond is to withhold the developer' s.......

Girard interrupted and said the letter did not reference 9A. He will make his final comment here. He

simply requests the Board to direct staff to write a letter that references 9A and says that they are indefault not to take legal action, but to reference they are in default.

Raible asked if that raised a red flag just to say that you are in default. They already know that they arewithout saying we are going to do this after 30 days.

O' Flaherty said the due diligence would have shown the 15 day letter. How is that 15 letter to the

developer, why would the other one disturb Chavoustie more?

Raible said you are a developer and you know these things.

Chavoustie said it is a challenge because he is a developer and a mayor also in this case and a votingmember, but is it a deal breaker? He didn' t know. He didn' t know anything about these people. He

doesn' t know how close they are. He knew when they were doing the Sun Deal, that there literally wasa point where we had a deal break and he said to the Board, this is a deal breaker and he is 100% sure

that they are going to go south if we say no to this on this item. Ifwe don' t bend, we are going to break.

O' Flaherty said we appreciated that.

Chavoustie said the Board agreed and it has gone very well. They closed and all that. On this, he just

didn' t know from the other side. Again, if he sat in a room with a group and here is our plan and here isour capital and here is our experience and we already know tons about your Town and if he saw theinvestment, the due diligence, the plan forward, he would be able to say things with more confidence. He likes the idea of putting them on notice. He likes the idea ofputting extra teeth into this.

O' Flaherty said what if it does go south. What if there is no deal and we need to call the bonds and we

need to get these residents' roads that are passable? At one point, there were roads that she seriously

questioned about if emergency vehicles could even get through.

Krob said you can call the bonds right now. The problem is if you call the bonds, you only get thatmuch and the Town assumes the responsibility for fixing the roads rather than having them fix the roads.

Some guy who didn' t introduce himself said, you don' t want to call the present bonds. There aren' t

sufficient funds in there to pay for what we have estimated right now. They may come back to you. He

thought the letter that you sent out was for $4,800,000. They may come back to you and say no, it is3, 800,000. He just heard today that they are not going to have a public bid opening on the bids for the

roads. He didn' t know how they could get away with that.

O' Flaherty said it is actually interesting. They are having a mandatory pre-bid this Friday. Is that the

usual protocol?


Krob said it is not unusual on a large project that ifyou are going to participate in.... ( too many peopletalking over each other to understand this part).

Tindle said to her, if the $ 19, 000,000 writs that are all attached to the property doesn' t kill the deal, shedidn' t see how this would kill the deal. She saw all of those come in. She would be more worried aboutthe $ 19, 000,000. She would go with the developer not being able to get building permits and COs. She

totally agreed with what is out there right now. They should be able to finish. It is not their fault this is

happening. To her, if she was buying it and she saw the $ 19, 000,000 hit by her sister and it is going tocourt that would dissuade her more.

Raible said that is different. The way that he read it is out of your profits before you put that in thebank, you have to pay us. It doesn' t really have anything to do with the deal itself. From what he is

saying, it just is .... when you close this deal, don' t just take the money and run, pay your debt first. One question he had was, what about the sales tax agreement. Is that in play.

Krob asked if he meant the Tax Reimbursement Agreement.

Raible said yes.

Krob said yes, it goes with the property.

Raible said after 30 days, is that something that we could say that we notified them, now we are going tonot share sales tax with them.

O' Flaherty said she didn' t think that we do share yet, because they haven' t hit the threshold.

Krob said we share part of it.

Raible said that would hurt.

Blair said it is just a portion of it.

Krob said we will have to look at the sales tax share back agreement and see if they are in violation of it. If they are in compliance with that, then he didn' t know that you could withhold the sales tax.

Raible said he definitely liked what he said about the no permits or COs on the developer properties.

O' Flaherty said GRH owned property.

Raible said if somebody comes in and buys GRH gets those assets, they can' t do anything with themuntil they.....

O' Flaherty said she thought she agreed with them wholeheartedly on that. She thought there is no harm.

She thought there was due diligence on the 15 day letter. She thought to open up additional remedies,

she would still like to see staff put out a 30 day letter.

Chavoustie said you guys are homeowners and there are homeowners in the audience. If you want to do

the 30 day, he is not opposed to it. He is tossing around the ideas. From the real estate part, it is a red

flag. It is the same as if you are getting a home inspection done and it says there is a crack over here inthe foundation. Is it a deal breaker, maybe or maybe not? We have to have it looked at.

Raible said we are not making any ultimatums here. We are not saying that you have to do this or this iswhat is going to happen.

O' Flaherty said notice of breach.

Raible said you are in default or breach.

Krob suggested if they are going to do that kind of letter that it would say something along the lines ofas you are aware, we sent you this notice, it obligates you to provide additional bond, you are in breachof the agreement in that you have failed to provide that additional bond and so therefore you are given

notice pursuant to the 30 day notice in 9A, that you are in breach of the agreement and leave it at that.


Raible said perfect.

Krob said you may not want to go down the Town reserves the right to exercise all legal and equitableremedies because you may want to do a simple, short notice.

Chavoustie said that is cleaner and then a buyer says, all he has to do is bring the bond up to date.

O' Flaherty said yes.

Chavoustie said that doesn' t scare them about all the other things. He doesn' t want a buyer runningaway from this deal if there really is somebody.

O' Flaherty said that is why she wanted to ask him on a due diligence if the letters basically say the samething. You have to bring this bond current. She didn' t see where that was going to......

Raible said he liked what Krob just said.

Hardy said this may even bring conversation up from a buyer to come in and talk to this Board.

Chavoustie said we have people call us that say that they are going to open a whatever it is, we talk tothem all day long and help them move forward and he thought if he is buying the biggest piece ofground in Granby, he is going to talk to the mayor and Town Board, Manager and introduce himself. Sun Communities, if you remember, as soon as they were under contract, we released who it was. We

didn' t try to keep it a secret and Sun didn' t try to keep it a secret. We wanted people to investigate Sun

and know who they were. As soon as you are under contract, there is no reason not to share who the

people are. He doesn' t know why it has been this giant thing.

O' Flaherty said we have residents on this Board. She thought, as a Town, we clearly want to support

any new buyer. It is a big part of our sales tax revenue. There is a lot of property value and tax revenueassociated with it. It is a big asset to the community to have the ski and golf, all the hiking and bikingactivities there. There is no one here that wants it to succeed more than this Board. She would welcome

the opportunity to visit with the new perspective buyer or interested parties and assure them that ourBoard is behind them.

Krob said it would be a motion to suspend all building permits and Certificates of Occupancy for theGranby Ranch Holdings owned properties within the three subdivision improvement agreements and tosend a 30 day notice pursuant to Section 9 as discussed.

O' Flaherty asked if those would have to be three separate letters before we make that motion since theyare three different SIAs?

Blair said we did last time.

Krob said we will do it the same way.

Raible said where they will be sent this time.

Krob said we will send them to both addresses. Now, they could argue that they have given us noticethat the address has changed.

Raible so moved. Hardy seconded. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes5). Yes: Mayor Paul Chavoustie, Trustee Cathy Tindle, Trustee Josh Hardy, Trustee Natascha

O'Flaherty, Trustee Nick Raible.

BOARD TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO C.R.S. 24-6- 402 ( 4) OR

8: 15 PM

Krob said this would be under (4)( e) matters subject to negotiations. The executive session included the

Town Board and Town Staff.

Tindle so moved. O' Flaherty seconded. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Mayor Paul Chavoustie, Trustee Cathy Tindle, Trustee Josh Hardy, Trustee NataschaO'Flaherty, Trustee Nick Raible.


OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION8: 42 PM

Krob noted for the record that we just finished an executive session, the scope of the session was withinthe scope of the statutes, he was present throughout so they are subject to the attorney/client privilege.

MEETING TO ADJOURN

8: 42 PM

O' Flaherty moved to adjourn. Raible seconded. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call votesummary: Yes = 5). Yes: Mayor Paul Chavoustie, Trustee Cathy Tindle, Trustee Josh Hardy, Trustee

Natascha O'Flaherty, Trustee Nick Raible.

N° FG'

tlx% ATTEST: i

s f

ER 1A ••''

Deborah K. Hess, CMC

Town Clerk

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Paul Chavoustie

Mayor

workshop — short term rentals board of trustees to … · 1/8/2019 · by: mayor paul chavoustie...

Documents