From an Existing Caucus Is a Procedure Not Contemplated in The

September 7, 2016

Delivered by Hand Rachel Richards, Chair Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County 530 E. Main Aspen CO 81611

Re: Application for Recognition of new Snowmass Creek Caucus: Second Reading and Public Hearing—September 14, 2016

Dear Commissioners:

This is a case of first impression under the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter. Secession from an existing Caucus is a procedure not contemplated in the Charter and is a request never before considered in some 42 years of the existence of the Snowmass-Capitol Creek Caucus, the first to be recognized in 1974. At the Public Hearing and Second Reading on September 14, 2016, this Packet will provide useful analysis and additional options for the Board, assembled and submitted by the undersigned Directors on the Board of the existing Snowmass- Capitol Creek Caucus.

For your convenience, the materials are organized as follows with all referenced letters attached following the analysis:

COMPLIANCE WITH HOME RULE CHARTER Page A. MEMORANDUM ANALYZING COMPLIANCE WITH HRC 4. 5 3

The " Only One Caucus" Rule 3 Letter from Michael Kinsley 7 Letter from Mark Harvey 9 Letter from Dee Malone 12 13 The " Definite Boundary" Requirement

B. MEMORANDUM ANALYZING COMPLIANCE WITH HRS 4. 1 AND 4. 2 4

Analyzing the Information Campaign, the Notice, the Meeting 4 and the Vote by Prospective Members 4 Letter from Kevin Michaelson 17 The " Meeting" for the Vote— Experience of Two who Voted 21 Letter from Sue Helm and Letter from Dave Nixa 23& 25

1 II. CONSEQUENCES and TIMING OF RECOGNITION

Page MEMORANDUM ANALYZING CONSEQUENCES& TIMING OF 5 BOCC RECOGNITION OF A NEW CAUCUS

Letter from Michael Kinsley Letter from Dee Malone, Crystal River Caucus 12 9 Letter from Mark Harvey Letter from Sue Helm 25 Letter from Dave Nixa 23 17 Letter from Kevin Michaelson

III. OPTION TO RECOGNIZE, NOT RECOGNIZE, OR CONTINUE HEARING

MEMORANDUM ANALYZING BOCC OPTIONS 6

Respectfully submitted by the following Board members of the Snowmass- 7th Capital Creek Caucus this day of September, 2016.

Board Members Gary Beck Patsy Batcheldor Chelsea Congdon Brundige Molly Child Martha Ferguson Gib Gardner Mark Harvey Kevin Heinecken Sue Helm, Emeritus John McBride Tim McFlynn Seth Sachson Helene Slansky Kevin Ward

Additional Board Members may elect to add their names by September 14, 2016

2 I. COMPLIANCE WITH HOME RULE CHARTER In the over 40-year history of the neighborhood caucus system in Pitkin County, unique in the State of Colorado, all Boards of County Commissioners and landowners and residents have benefitted. Based upon all of the materials submitted to date, the proponents of secession have not complied with the letter or the spirit of the Home Rule Charter.

A. Compliance with HRC 4. 5- The " Only One Caucus" Rule

A universal rule of construction might be helpful. Whether of statutory provisions, contractual provisions or Home Rule Charter provisions, that rule is to try to give meaning to each provision whenever a court or this quasi-judicial body must make factual findings and issue a decision.

As County Attorney John Ely has advised, the Home Rule Charter( HRC) Sections 4. 1 and 4. 2 " set a low bar" for Caucus formation and recognition by the BOCC. However, no advice or discussion in public has addressed the HRC Section 4. 5 requirements that:

There shall be only one ( 1) recognized caucus in each geographic area" and: Each caucus shall provide proposed definite boundaries for their caucus area to the Board."

As of the date of this application, there was a recognized caucus in the Old Snowmass planning area, one that had existed and operated for over 40 years and one that has had definite boundaries encompassing around 30,000 acres of private lands abutting public lands almost on all sides. This is the mapped Snowmass- Capitol Creek Planning Area that has an adopted Master Plan, an active Board and Membership, a strong history of good works, an occasional rough patch internally, and an upcoming election in the Fall.

This Board certainly has the opportunity if not the obligation to read Sections 4. 1, 4.2 and 4.5 together. Doing so should lead to the realization that those seeking recognition of a new caucus within a geographic area where one already exists, there must be steps taken by both the existing and the proposed caucus to meet, to confer and to collaborate on changes to the name, to the definite boundaries and to other Caucus attributes so that this Board can be fully informed and make proper findings at the public hearing for recognition. Such findings will include the appropriate name, the definite boundaries, and compliance with Section 4. 1 and 4.2. No such meeting, no such conversation and no such collaboration have yet occurred, despite several invitations and opportunities for same. If there are to be two recognized caucuses operating in the Planning Area known as Old Snowmass, time must be allowed for the careful development of sufficient information from which the Board can make an informed decision. Please see attached: Letters from Michael Kinsley, Mark Harvey, and Dee Malone The" Definite Boundary" Requirement of the Home Rule Charter

3 B. Compliancep with Sections 4. 1 and 4. 2— Analyzingy g the Information Campaign, the Notice, the Meeting and the by Vote by Prospective Members

Another standard rule applicable to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings is that there is an implied covenant of reasonableness, good faith, and fair dealing. In this context, have the proponents of a new Caucus met that standard as applied to compliance with Sections 4. 1 and 4.2 in the absence of any bright line rules and standards in the Charter?

The facts are these:

1. Based upon current information from the Pitkin County Clerk& Recorder, the Pitkin County GIS Department and the Pitkin County Community Development Department, 56 votes were " yes", 38 votes were" no"— a difference of 9 individual voters -- out of 94 votes cast at the meeting. This constitutes approximately 10% of those entitled to vote because they too, on that date, were Members of the proposed Caucus area as qualified electors and either residents ( not just landowners) or non-residents owning land within the proposed new boundaries. There are approximately 241 parcels and plus or minus 400 members in the proposed new Caucus planning area.

Please see attached: The" Meeting" for the Vote— Experience of Two who Voted Letter from Kevin Michaelson Letter from Sue Helm Letter from Dave Nixa

2. The reasons for the extremely low level of participation include a private and confidential outreach and information campaign over a short time frame, followed by

4th extremely short notice, on July via email only, announcing the Deaf Camp meeting as an opportunity to vote in person on July 11th. There was no reasonable or meaningful effort to conduct an information campaign to all prospective Members within the proposed boundaries ( qualified electors who are resident landowners, non-resident landowners, and resident caretakers, ranch managers and renters, over 18 and eligible to vote).

See attached Letters from Kevin Michaelson, Dave Nixa, Sue Helm and others

These facts must be measured against the standards set forth in HRC Section 4. 1 which require at least reasonable or substantial compliance with:

Section 4. 1 A caucus may be established by a qualified elector who calls a meeting at a convenient time and place within the proposed caucus area. An information campaign shall be conducted to ensure that all qualified electors and non-resident real property owners in the proposed caucus area know of the date, time, place and purpose of the meeting."

4 3. The rush to conduct a Pre- Emptive Vote, just eight( 8) days prior to the long-scheduled and well-advertised Public Member Meeting on the draft Master Plan on 19th July at the Firehouse, the secrecy surrounding that effort until the 4th of July, and the use of personal contacts rather than email, snail mail, and posted Notices may explain the extremely low voter turnout at the Meeting. The 56 to 38 outcome is a margin of only 9 individual voters out of at least 241 parcel owners and almost certainly 400 to 500 eligible Members who could have voterd at this election.

Please see attached The " Meeting" for the Vote— Experience of 2 who Voted

II. CONSEQUENCES AND TIMING OF RECOGNITION

In any case of first impression, caution is warranted in order to also consider the implications and consequences of the precedent thereby set. Whenever a Court or other quasi-judicial body is bound to determine the facts, make findings and render its decision where there is no precedent and no deadline, rushing can be problematic, later regretted.

With the door now open to recognition and a" low bar" to eligibility, might the precedent lead to a splintering off of other neighborhoods within the existing Snowmass, Emma, Woody Creek, Crystal, Maroon and other Caucus Planning Areas? Might this be a propitious time to direct Community Development staff, working with the caucuses, the P Z and this Board, to develop policies and standards for future applications for recognition, especially where another Caucus already exists?

Notably, the Home Rule Charter is silent as to the timeline or deadline for a recognition decision, following receipt of an application. The only applicable provision is Section 4.2 that provides that:

The Board, after satisfying itself that the provisions of this Article have been met, shall recognize the caucus and establish the caucus area [ definite boundaries) by resolution."

This then is an opportunity to develop some basic policies and standards, not applicable to the pending Snowmass Creek Caucus request for recognition that is already before this Board, but adopted, in effect and applicable to new applications for recognition. The standards could subsequently be folded into future amendments of the Home Rule 11th Charter. Like the Meeting on July and the Vote that evening, this BOCC process has gone very quickly. The old maxim" Go slow to Go far" seems to apply if this Board values the continued existence of voluntary neighborhood caucuses.

Once such policies and standards are adopted, this Board can resume its Second Reading and Public Hearing on the proposed Snowmass Creek Caucus and make the Findings and issue a Decision under the current Home Rule Charter. The goal posts should not be moved by applying any new Policies and Standards to this pending application.

5 September 6, 2016 To: Pitkin BOCC From: Michael Kinsley Subject: Proposed Upper-Snowmass Valley Separation

Friends:

The BOCC can choose to narrowly define its authority on this issue within the vague language of the Home Rule Charter. But please recall that, if the BOCC had narrowly defined its authority forty years ago, there would be no GMQS, affordable housing, or many of the other achievements that make this a remarkable county. The BOCC had no explicit authority for any of that. In fact, the BOCC had no authority to even create caucuses when it did so, prior to the Charter.

Also, please note that such foundation documents as constitutions and charters are often framed in general language to allow contemporary leaders to interpret legislative intent and to decide appropriately for current conditions.

It' s not unreasonable to suggest that county standards for separation of caucuses should be additional to, and more rigorous than, rules governing caucus formation. Separation is far more grave and fraught. A cautious, reasoned approach would develop such language rather than rush to judgment based on language that did not contemplate separation. In particular, if Upper Snowmass Creek residents have sufficient cause for separation, let that question be openly debated in the neighborhood with plenty of time for affected residents and landowners to make informed decisions. As a SnoCap resident and former board member, I would help those wishing separation in their efforts to have a neighborhood conversation.

The BOCC is correct to be concerned with precedent. And Yes or No votes each will create their own precedent. Upper Snowmass Creek separation would spark many more groups to create sub- caucuses with like-minded people. At that point, the Old Snowmass precedent would prevent the BOCC from averting disintegration of the caucus system.

Representation: Eight of 17 members of the current SnoCap Caucus board live within the area being proposed for separation. Upper Snowmass Creek is full represented. Moreover, the Snowmass-

7 Capitol Creek caucus board has unanimously delayed action on its draft master plan until after the next caucus-board election this fall.

Caucus value: Born in the SnoCap valleys under the leadership of Bob Child, the caucus phenomenon is the backbone of grassroots democracy in the county. Caucuses were formalized by the BOCC because neighborhood organizing and land-use planning was the foundation of the progressive/growth-control/affordability movement that took over county government in 1973.

Respectfully

4(4.‘, 1[4:74i1 Michael Kinsley Pitkin BOCC member July 1975 - July 1985) 100 Merrill Lane Old Snowmass

8 HARVEY RANCH 7651 SNOWMASS CREEK ROAD SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81 654

September 2, 2016

Board of County Commissioners 530 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611

Dear BOCC:

I am writing in regard to the proposed new caucus in the Snowmass Creek drainage. In a previous meeting with the BOCC on August 23, we detailed the various accomplishments of the present Snowmass- Capitol Creek Caucus over its 42 years of association in preserving the natural environment and heritage of the two valleys. That needs no further enumeration as you' ve heard several residents and caucus board members energetically defend the caucus' many successes.

So what comes before you today is a quasi-judicial decision without precedent. I say that it comes without precedent because in the four decades of Pitkin County caucus history, never before has a group tried to super-impose a new caucus over a geographical area with an already very active and established caucus.

As we are discovering in this process and through the deliberation at the previous two readings, the language and articles of the home rule charter falls short for this sort of thing and is woefully vague on the specific guidelines for establishing a new caucus. Nevertheless I am going to suggest in this letter that even the vague and sometimes contradictory articles of the home rule charter preclude recognizing a new caucus based on recent events and history.

The cornerstone of my argument emanates from article 4.5 of the home rule charter, which reads: " There shall be only one ( 1) recognized caucus in each geographic area. Each caucus shall provide proposed and definite boundariesfor their caucus to the Board "

Presently there is one caucus in the Snowmass Capitol Creek area that is very clearly defined and unmistakably meets the other half of article 4. 5, which reads: " Recognized caucus areas to the greatest extent possible shall reflect geographically contiguous areas with social, economic, cultural, and environmental communities ofinterest. "

9 steadily attended caucuses of the system. It is certainly the oldest and it has never gone dormant for a moment. The Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus has been very active in both valleys ranging from warding off logging operations in Capitol Creek to working diligently on healthy stream flows in Snowmass Creek.

Further, the present board is represented almost evenly between Snowmass Creek residents and Capitol Creek residents. The point here is that the caucus is established, has a long history, represents both valleys, and acts in both valleys. It would be hard to find a caucus better matching the description and language in article 4.5.

Therefore, I would argue that article 4. 1. 1 ( A caucus may be established by any qualified elector who calls a meeting at a convenient time andplace within the proposed caucus area.) is not the defining article of this issue. Yes, that article represents a low bar for starting a caucus as some of you have stated but can' t we presume that this article is intended for those starting a new caucus, not those trying to superimpose or carve out a caucus from one that already exists and has forty years of history behind it.

It seems arbitrary to let article 4. 1. 1 be your guide in this quasi-judicial setting and not article 4. 5.

Even ifyou were to be guided by article 4. 1. 1, for this issue, I would maintain that the conditions required in the home rule charter have not been met. Namely, the clause that states, " An information campaign shall be conducted to ensure that all qualified electors and non-resident realproperty owners in the proposed caucus area know ofthe date, time, place, andpurpose ofthe meeting. "

In my opinion, these conditions were simply not met. Not even close. To begin, the 11th notice for the July vote over whether or not to establish a new caucus was not sent until July 4. Think about that. That gave residents and property owners one week' s notice. In what other venue is one week' s notice sufficient time to announce a vote of import. When you consider the busy lifestyles of Pitkin County residents, especially in the summer, shouldn' t voters have at least two months notice? One month? One week just does not meet the criteria set forth in article 4. 1. 1.

And a notice of a vote should be circulated broadly through various mediums. As a long- time Snowmass Creek property owner, I did not receive any notice until a friend forwarded me his notice. Our ranch managers had no notice either and they have been residents of the proposed new caucus for thirteen years. There are wide numbers of people who should have, but did not receive notice.

Compounding the short notice given was the lack of any information campaign. I would challenge those supporting the new caucus to fully outline their information campaign before the BOCC. To my knowledge there was not a single announced public hearing or public meeting prior to the vote describing the issues at hand. To my knowledge there was no written literature with a real description of what the vote was about. A number of

10 people showed up at the vote fully admitting they had no idea what they were voting on and why.

The poor information campaign and lack ofnotice is evidenced by the small number of people who actually voted. From GIS mapping we estimate that close to 500 people live in the newly proposed caucus area. Of that number, only 94 people, or 19%, voted. Only 56 people or 11% voted in favor of a new caucus. That is a very small percentage of residents breaking apart a fine organization with over four decades ofhistory.

Given what I consider a clear precedence of article 4.5 over article 4. 1. 1 in this case and given that the proponents of the new caucus categorically did not meet the criteria for an information campaign or proper noticing of residents, I would urge the BOCC to reject a new caucus in the Snowmass Capitol Creek area. We already have one active and fully represented caucus.

Short of rejecting the new caucus proposal, I would urge the BOCC to continue or table their decision to a further date once the air has really been cleared and once Snowmass Creek residents have had a chance to catch up on events. I think you will agree that residents should fully understand the purpose and potential consequences of suddenly being removed from the Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus and put into a new one. There is nothing that needs rushing here and it would be rash to make a decision of this consequence without the proper time for study and deliberation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Harvey

11 Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners 530 E Main Street Aspen Colorado September 6th, 2016

Dear Commissioners,

I am writing in response to the proposed new caucus in the Snowmass Creek drainage. During my past six years as Chairperson of the Crystal River Valley Caucus I have come to realize that our Caucus area residents have more in common than they do differences. Although our Caucus area residents are very different with regard to their political persuasion, religious beliefs, income level and more, our commonality is that we love our home— the Crystal River Valley. This shared interest brings us together

not always in agreement— but always with the goal of making the best decision for our home.

from consensus— through the Caucus This coming together is what enables decisions that are forged process decisions more often than not evolve, and are modified from the original to accommodate positions that were previously not appreciated were it not for the discussion and compromise that comes during this process.

which— from the recognition that we, as a The relevancy of the Caucus derives from acting as one voice Caucus area, have a shared interest that supersedes our individual interests. This recognition enables decisions that, while perhaps not celebrated by all, are agreed to by all because they do indeed benefit the entire Caucus area.

From my view as Chairperson of the Crystal River Caucus the function and goals of the Caucus concept will be undermined by the splitting of the Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus and creation of a new Caucus. Rather I encourage ongoing discussion that facilitates consensus decision- making that enables the continuation of the Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus as a united voice.

I am sincerely

CAR-ijkit

Delia G. Malone 0111 Mountain Lion Way Redstone, Colorado, 81623

12 The " Definite Boundary" Requirement of the Home Rule Charter

The Proposed Boundaries:

In their application to the BOCC to create the new Snowmass Creek Caucus, the proponents state:

Additionally, the delineated, geographic area of the new caucus is contiguous and will better achieve the County charter objectives of creating

caucuses that are representative of the particular " social, economic,

cultural, and environmental communities of interest". The Snowmass Creek Valley has developed with generally larger acreages and a philosophy toward fewer rules and regulations. The Capitol Creek Valley is characterized by subdivisions that are more densely populated with smaller land parcels and a different drainage. "

Response to the Proposed Boundaries :

1) The 2 valleys are actually more similar than different in terms of lot sizes, house sizes, percentage of second home owners, social and cultural trends,

and environmental communities.

a. Both valleys have large ranches which are still operating hay and/ or cattle ranches: the Harvey Ranch, Snowmass Falls Ranch owned by the Perry family, the High Mesa Ranch owned by the Hildebrandt' s, and the Lazy 0 Ranch are all located in the proposed split off area. The McCabe Ranch, the McBride ranches, Maurin family ranch, St. Benedict' s Monastery, the Child Ranch, and the Casey Ranch are all large ranches on the Capitol Creek side which are working ranches. Some of these ranches on both sides have completed land use applications to have exclusive home sites available for sale. b. Both valleys have a variety of parcels of land in the 35 to several hundred- acre size.

c. Both valleys have subdivisions with parcels of land that are less than an acre in size in some cases. The proposed split- off area has 3 subdivisions with small lots included in the mix of lots: Shield- Mesa, Shield- 0 Terrace, and Hidden Meadows. The area left in the existing

13 caucus has 4 subdivisions which have been developed: Little Elk Creek, McCabe Ranch, Capitol Woods , and Gateway Mesa. d. The exclusion of Gateway Mesa and lower Snowmass Creek Road in the proposed new caucus boundary does not make sense since the type of lots that exist there are very similar to those in the proposed new caucus boundary. e. The inclusion of Lazy- O Ranch in the new caucus does not make sense. The land is on the Capitol Creek side, and the main entrances used by homeowners are off of the Capitol Creek Road. The type and size of subdivisions and homes in Lazy - O are very similar to others on Capitol Creek, including homes along East Sopris Creek Road and on the McCabe Ranch. In fact, the Lazy- O Ranch is more similar to the McCabe Ranch and the Casey and Child Ranch subdivisions in that the lots are carved out of a bigger ranch, allowing the bigger ranch to still operate as a working ranch. There is nothing comparable on the upper Snowmass Creek side.

2) House sizes: Both sides of the 2 valleys have house sizes either approved or built that go up to 8, 250 square feet in size. Some of these were created by using a TDR or the GMQS competition. Both sides of the valley have lots approved as TDR receiver sites, either to build a larger home or to avoid GMQS competition.

3) Social and Cultural trends —Both sides of the 2 valleys have a large number of part- time residents. Both sides have a large number of residents who commute to Aspen or Snowmass Village every day to work, making both valleys a bedroom community for the work force for the resorts. Both sides have children who attend ( or used to attend) a variety of both public and private schools in the Roaring Fork valley. Both sides have residents who work on the large ranches located in the 2 valleys with resident ranch managers or caretakers. Both sides of the valleys also have a large number

of parcels that are listed " For Sale". 4) The environmental aspects of both valleys are very much the same, with 2 creeks that run together to form a larger Snowmass Creek at the mouth where they empty into the Roaring Fork River. Both sides have similar ecosystems, big game herds that migrate back and forth, and are beset by

14 the same types of environmental issues such as sudden aspen decline and reduced stream flows from water diversion for irrigation.

Summary

Both the Capitol Creek and Snowmass Creek sides of the valley are almost identical in terms of the " social, economic, cultural, and environmental communities of interest". These criteria show how similar the two valleys are, and don' t point out any differences that would indicate a justification for creating a new caucus for upper Snowmass Creek.

Map Boundary Discrepancies

1) The map of the proposed new caucus boundaries was not circulated to the public in general until after the vote on July 11 took place, and was never shown to the existing Snowmass/ Capitol Creek Caucus Board or Members for comments or discussion. The BOCC should be consulting with the existing caucus about any proposed changes to its boundaries, for the existing caucus is the referral agency in our caucus area. 2) The Lazy- O Ranch is on the Capitol Creek side of the 2 valleys. The main entrances that the homeowners use are off the Capitol Creek Road, and only the ranch managers house is accessed off the Snowmass Creek Road. It appears that the proponents of the new caucus wanted to get the votes of some Lazy- O homeowners who were sympathetic to their cause. 3) The home of Theresa and Doug Hall at 1780 Snowmass Creek Road and the home immediately below them have their driveways on the lower portion of the Snowmass Creek Road. The Hall residence is on one side of Capitol Creek, and the other house is on the opposite side of the creek. It appears there is no consistent logic in including either of these 2 properties in the proposed new caucus area. If Capitol Creek is the dividing line, then the house below the Hall' s should be left in the existing caucus. If the driveway access off of lower Snowmass Creek Road is the deciding point, then both lots should be left in the existing caucus area. 4) The Harvey Ranch is split in two, with part of the ranch in the proposed new caucus area, and the other half left in the existing caucus area. Granted that part of their ranch does drain into the Capitol Creek valley, but the road access has always been off Snowmass Creek Road, and

15 physically cannot be off the Capitol Creek side due to extreme topographical and land ownership issues. 5) The proposed boundary includes land going down from the top of Watson Divide toward Highway 82 on the Gerbaz side. Granted a lot of this belongs to the Wheeler family whose house is on the Snowmass Creek side of Watson Divide, but the area of influence of the existing caucus has never been on the Highway 82 side of the divide. If the logic is to keep all of the Wheeler property in the proposed new caucus, then why was not the same logic applied to keep the entire Harvey ranch in one caucus or the other? A similar oddity occurs with the Ziegler property where it goes over the Snowmass Divide into the Brush Creek valley adjacent to the Town of Snowmass Village. In this case the proposed new boundary follows the existing caucus boundary. This is an anomaly that probably should be addressed in the future with a boundary line adjustment. Otherwise, the Ziegler Reservoir will remain in our caucus area, and we should get credit for the discovery of the Ice Age bones! 6) The Monastery Cut- off Road in Shield- O is a continuous road that travels down into the Monastery property and was historically used by homesteaders in the valley to travel from Capitol Creek to Aspen. It has not been used for this purpose since the Monastery acquired their property in the 1950' s, but this does show the contiguity and common history of the 2 valleys. 7) The proposed new caucus is called the Snowmass Creek Caucus, but does not include the whole lower end of the Snowmass Creek Road and valley.

Summary: It appears that the proponents of the new caucus have gerrymandered the map, choosing some areas and excluding others to suit their own agenda. The proposed new caucus boundary is contiguous, but it does not make sense in many respects, and includes land belonging to many people who want to stay in the existing caucus and not be part of the new caucus.

16 From: Kevin Michelson - Corrected Submission

Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 8: 20 PM To: rachel. richards@ pitkincounty.com' rachel. richards@ pitkincounty.com>; ' Patti Clapper' patti. [email protected]>; ' steve. child@pitkincountycom' steve [email protected] com>; ' Michael Owsley' michael. [email protected]>; ' George Newman' george. newman@pitkincounty. com> Subject: Application for Recognition of a Snowmass Creek Caucus

All,

Sorry, but I re- read my letter and noticed some typos where I said Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus instead of just Snowmass Creek

Caucus... Also, I got the date of my notice to SOTHA wrong... The

4th 6th... notice to SOTHA occurred July instead of July

Kevin

Dear Commissioners,

I am writing in regards to the proposed Snowmass Creek Caucus ( SCC). My family has been living in the Snowmass Creek Valley for the past 10+ years, and I have been a Board member on the Shield 0 Terraces

Homeowner' s Association ( SOTHA) for the past 10+ years. I question the desire of the proposed constituency to form a new caucus, and my preferred outcome is to keep our groups together as one unified caucus.

Jan Martin presented various grievances with respect to the current Snowmass- Capital Creek Caucus ( SNOCAP) to the SOTHA Board in a June 15, 2016 Board Meeting. Not long afterward, on July 4, 2016,

17 personally provided notice to SOTHA homeowners (30 members) by email regarding a caucus separation vote to occur five ( 5) seven ( 7) days later on July 11, 2016. During these five ( 5) seven ( 7) days, circulated various opinions on the matter to SOTHA Members.

I personally attended the July 11, 2016 vote at the deaf camp, and voted against the formation of a new caucus. There were no proposed governing documents available at the vote, nor have any been presented to the proposed constituency. To this day, I am still uncertain what the Snowmass Creek Caucus represents.

I noticed a list during the July 11, 2016 vote that was used to verify voters. I had wondered at the time how this list was created, and what it may represent. On July 18, seven ( 7) days following the vote, we were presented with a map of the proposed SCC.

I attended the Snowmass- Capital Creek Caucus Meeting on July 19, 2016 that was held to discuss the proposed amendments to the Master Plan. My conclusion from this meeting was that the opinions of those in attendance were relatively in line with the opinions represented by Jan Martin and others interested in a caucus separation. The conclusion and action item from that meeting was make efforts to reunite the groups.

Unfortunately, I missed the BOCC meeting held July 23, 2016, but I was able to attend the continuance of the issue on July 24, 2016. I agree with Rachel Richards' statement in this meeting that if one were to compare the master plans of a Snowmass Creek Caucus and a

Capital Creek Caucus, around 90% of the content would be similar.

After the BOCC meeting, I did a little research to better understand how much of the proposed constituency may have been represented at the July 11, 2016, separation vote. Attached to this letter is a map and associated mailing list that I generated using the online tools provided by the Pitkin County GIS department. This information

18 indicates that the proposed SCC consists of 241 properties. The application for recognition of the SCC submitted by Jan Martin claims that the July 11 vote had "... 56 in favor and 38 opposed..." and that there are 130 residences in the area..."

I would propose to the BOCC to take an appropriate amount of time to evaluate The Pitkin County Home Rule Charter regarding the formation of Caucuses. My opinion is that the Home Rule Charter is woefully inadequate and requires revision, or supporting policies. If the Snowmass Creek constituency is truly interested in the formation of a separate caucus, I would like to see 2/ 3 of parcel owners represented at a vote with one vote per parcel member. I would also like to see a proposed map, list of parcel owners, and governing documents.

The 94 total votes held on July 11, represents 39% ( 94/ 241) of the total parcels. Since the Home Rule Charter allows qualified electors in the composition of a caucus, multiple voters from single parcels may have been represented at the July 11 vote. Either way, I do not believe the proposed constituency was properly represented at the July 11 vote.

I would recommend that the BOCC develop specific policies regarding the formation of Caucuses or revisions to the Home Rule Charter and call for another separation vote for the formation of a Snowmass Creek Caucus. If the constituency demonstrates the desire to form a new caucus under more appropriate guidelines and representation, the BOCC should support the constituency. My feeling is that the constituency has not been properly represented to justify the formation of a new caucus.

Respectfully submitted,

Kevin Michelson

19 Kevin Michelson 707 Shield- O Rd. Snowmass, CO 81654 970)- 923- 5818 home 970)- 948- 6659 cell kevin@peakvisions. net

20 THE ' MEETING' FOR THE VOTE — experience of 2 who voted

Dave Nixa - My wife and I arrived relatively early but still had to park on Snowmass Creek road, which was dangerous. The first thing I saw was a large flip chart saying Snowmass Creek Residents Only. There was also a Pitkin County Sheriff in the parking area, not sure if they were expecting protests or violence, but seemed a bit of overkill.

The room was more of a social gathering than a meeting or vote. One had to register with Father Joseph, and get a voting slip he initialed. Kathy could see how you were voting, no privacy. I spoke to a dozen or so people. Several didn' t know why there was a vote, what it was for, what the issues were, what the alternatives were. One person thought it was a vote to prevent Christmas Lights from being installed.

I only saw three people from Shield 0 (and knew at least 5 were out of town). The notice was only a week and most people, other than the SCC supporters didn' t even know there was a vote or why. One of Shield 0 resident doesn' t have email.

There were no presentations, it was very noisy and dark and felt more like you needed a drink so you could talk to the neighbors. I have no idea what the counting protocol was. Who

counted the votes, 58 in favor seems high given the number of people I saw? Lots of

questions, not well- organized and not a meting.

September 6, 2016 Dave Nixa

Sue Helm — I was curious to see how this vote would be handled, so I arrived early and brought copies of a letter I had written. It was already a social scene when I arrived. I looked for a ' want more information' area and there was a sign off to one side of the room and a round table with Jan Martin' s rebuttal of my letter and my letter and nothing else. There was no intent to have a general discussion of pros and cons, and no one spoke to the group. The room was not set up for a discussion and was so noisy it would have been impossible.

There was a small round table in the middle of the room with a hand- crafted ballot box. People simply walked in to the main room at the Aspen Camp and sat one at a time at this table while the proponents milled around the table enjoying time with their friends. Father Joseph was on one side of the voter and Kathy DeWolfe was on the other side checking people' s name with what I' ve been told was the Pitkin County voter registration list. From her spot at the table, Kathy could look down at the tale and watch each voter while he or she checked the Box " Yes" or " No" on the ballot. There was no area designated to privately vote.

There had been no indication of the length of time that votes would be accepted. As things wound down, Father Joseph and Jan and Art Martin apparently started counting votes. I was in

21 the ' want more information' side area. I knew there were still two more people coming to vote, but most of the rest had departed. The two arrived. One was allowed to vote but one who has lived in this proposed new caucus area for two years was denied a vote because he was not on Kathy' s list. One more person apparently came in after this and voted.

In Jan Martin' s Exhibit C she stated that I was part of counting the vote twice and was in agreement with the tally. I was never asked to be nor did I act as an oveseer for the vote. I have no idea what was in the ballot box when I arrived nor do I know if Father Joseph checked it initially. Seeing that I was still in the room, I did count the no votes, saw what I guess were the yes votes in someone else' s hand, but I never saw or counted them.

I certainly never agreed with anything about the vote; the short one week notice simply by e- mail to people who, other than the friends they had set up to be there, had for the most part no idea what this was about or who was behind it, the calling for a vote with no general meeting to discuss pros and cons of the issue, or with the arbitrary procedure set up to decide who could or could not vote and then having no privacy in the middle of a party atmosphere for that vote.

September 6, 2016 Thank you for your time and consideration. Sue Helm

22 David Nixa

727 Shield 0 Rd

Snowmass, CO

9- 6- 16

Editor Aspen Times

Via Email

RE: Snowmass/ Capital Creek Caucus– Snowmass Creek Caucus Separation– The Process

Recently a small group of Snowmass Creek residents proposed splitting the present Snowmass- Capitol Creek( SNOCAP) caucus into two separate organizations. The proposed split is on the Pitkin County Commissioner' s Agenda, including a public hearing, on September 14. The BOCC work session on 8/ 23 and subsequent board meeting on 8/ 24, featured this issue and can be viewed via the Pitkin County website.

The SNOCAP is the original Pitkin County caucus (for over 40 years) with many significant accomplishments and demonstrated leadership in the caucus system. The new caucus would be Snowmass Creek Caucus ( SCC).

My concern is that the process used to create the new caucus was seriously flawed and the new caucus is being considered by the BOCC under existing statutes, that they have agreed are also flawed. I believe that this application should be tabled and any vote postponed until the " Code Clean- up and potential Charter Changes" can be researched and modified as needed, and a new vote ( if necessary) be done using a fair and representative process for all residents in the Snowmass Creek valley following clear communications by both sides of the issues, to all residents. A mediated solution could also prevent the need for the formation of any new caucus.

The proposed separation is rooted in several issues, but primarily due to proposed revisions to the SNOCAP Caucus Master Plan. Proponents of splitting the caucus are particularly concerned with land use and TDRs and potential impacts on property values, as well as how they are perceived by the caucus, as many are part time residents. The organizers made multiple attempts to be heard in one- on- one meetings, letters and messages, at public meetings of the SNOCAP caucus board and in writing of over 50 letters expressing their issues and concerns. They believe, with merit, they have been ignored, and that the final draft of the Proposed Master Plan did not address any of their concerns.

While I am empathetic to their concerns, the formation of a new, separate caucus is, in my view, premature and overkill at best. SNOCAP has acknowledged that they could have been more open, responsive, and communicative. They have also put any further discussion or changes to the Master Plan on indefinite hold until the issues have been addressed and resolved. The key issue, TDR' s, will be removed from the revised draft master plan and deferred to the county. So then, what is the real problem?

Proponents of splitting the caucus have been offered the opportunity to have open, mediated discussions to address their issues. They have flatly refused and have stated they prefer to go it alone. This just doesn' t make rational sense and appears to be rooted in a perceived insult over the lack of responsiveness by SNOCAP. I genuinely hope they can come to the table and behave like rational adults who can solve problems rather than creating new ones.

Much of the communication failure that created this whole problem emanated from an email error. The letters sent to

SNOCAP board members outlining complaints about the draft master plan were— for 14 of 17 of the members-- diverted to junk mail due to the subject title and electronic process used to send the email message. Consequently, most of the board was unaware of the depth of concern and did not even see the letters. The board did subsequently hold a public meeting in July for anyone to air their grievances. Over 50 people attended that meeting, but to my knowledge, there was no representation from the organizers of SCC.

23 The vote to split the caucus was held on July 11, with only one week' s advance notice ( via email) to area residents. This was insufficient notice and only a select few were actually notified. The SCC organizers decided to allow only thosewho lived in Lazy 0 Ranch ( not on Snowmass Creek Rd) and off of Snowmass Creek Rd from the T with Capital Creek Rd to the end at Divide Rd, to vote. Gateway, all of Capital Creek and East Sopris were excluded. This is a very arbitrary constituency.

The vote itself was highly irregular. The time available to vote was defined and very short; a large sign announced only

Snowmass Creek Rd residents could vote. Caretakers and renters were not allowed to vote. Other than the separation supporters, most people I spoke to did not know what or why they were voting. Subsequently several regretted their yes vote once they fully understood the reason for the vote. Many area residents did not receive the email notice and/ or were out of town. Many who did could not discern the purpose of vote and many wondered why there was no advance discussion of the issues from both sides. The voting process did not allow for privacy and was controlled by the organizers. Some individuals were not allowed to vote even though their spouse was.

Overall, the process was hastily thrown together, confusing, with limited advance information or alternative discussion. Why can' t intelligent adults get together and work out their differences and move forward as neighbors? Why so casually throw out 40 years of progress and friendship?

If you believe you were not represented at the July 11th vote for the creation of a new caucus, please attend the public hearing on September 14th and express your opinion or write to the BOCC if you can' t attend.

Sincerely,

David Nixa

Old Snowmass

Cc: Pitkin County BOCC

24 Sue Helm 11000 Snowmass Creek Road Snowmass, Colorado 81654

phone - ( 970) 923- 3131 fax- ( 970) 923- 3112

e- mail - suehelml@gmail. com August 18, 2016

Dear Board of County Commissioners;

This is to point out what to me are the important issues as well as address some of the points raised at the special meeting. To summarize those issues: There was no transparency. There was no way for all of the residents and property owners in the Snowmass Creek Valley to hear the pros and cons of the issues, And there was no way for others to offer alternative points of view before a matter that would affect everyone was called for a vote.

1. Vague Home Rule guidelines - Yes, those for Caucuses do not give much guidance but under those circumstances shouldn' t the governing body interpret them to fit today's climate and fit with accepted best practices?

a. One week' s notice to a group of 100 - 200 affected individuals with those living in the Valley with as many obligations and property owners who live throughout the County does not seem to me to meet any of the standard for County issues cited at the work session. b. There were just two e- mail notice for this vote sent from the `qualified elector' and these did not reach many of those affected. The first announced the Vote, the second was a rebuttal of a letter I was trying to circulate. There was no other attempt by signage, snail mail, public notices, etc. to attempt to get the word out. These were sent to undisclosed recipients. 1. The proponents denied the use to anyone else of the e- mail list they used.

2. There was never a general meeting scheduled for all affected residents to hear and discuss the pros and cons for forming a new Caucus. a. At the vote meeting 1. There was no structured time for a meeting to discuss issues. 2. In fact it was stated by Mrs. Martin that they had no intention of having the other side heard. a. In your packet for your special meeting there is a letter to Kevin on July 7, stating, "it is not our purpose to provide a ' forum' for the Caucus any more than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is required to provide an alternative point of view to potential voters". 1. Isn' t it desirable for voting to have an informed electorate? a. When affected voters don' t know this is happening and most have had no information, how can there be an informed electorate? 1. With one week notice and no general discussion meeting, that is not reasonable

3. The Master Plan process never advanced beyond the Draft stage. a. There are many residents who have concerns about the Master Plan as drafted yet who still believe the Caucus should stay together. The SCCC drafted the Master Plan with the full intention of soliciting and addressing public comment once the draft was complete. 25 b. The Snowmass- Capitol Creek Caucus meeting to discuss comments that had come in and to hear others was, too long delayed, but was adequately noticed by several methods a month in advance. 1. The vote on separation was called after the proponents knew of the Caucus meeting and they held their vote one week before that meeting. c. A Master Plan does not have to be a ' one size fits all' document. There could be one section of review criteria for the Capitol Creek Valley and a separate review process set out for the Snowmass Creek area.

4. This split was compared in your special meeting to a divorce and many factors mimic that. However the difference is that this affects several hundred people not just 2.

a. In a divorce all issues are discussed with both parties in order to work out solutions to the issues, often with a mediator. In this instance that same principle should apply. 1. that is the objection of many of us to the way this was handled.

Therefore I respectfully request that you take the time to examine the inadequacies of the Caucus section in the Home Rule Charter and give us time to have meaningful and substantive discussions by denying this request. There needs to be time to understand the opposing points of view, to work out the substantial problems with the DRAFT Master Plan, and to discuss possibilities for reworking the Caucus make- up.

If this is allowed to stand now, the County and this Valley will have lost what has been a very effective organization. It will not be able to be put back together, at least in the near future. Please give the 100+ residents and property owners whose voices have not been heard a chance to know the issues, to have them discussed in a meaningful forum, and then make these decisions that do affect all of them as an informed electorate. Then if things cannot be worked out, we' ve seen how easy it is to have another vote to separate. Whether there really is this mandate could then be decided by an informed electorate.

Thank you for your time, your help, and your concern,

Sue Helm

26 Janice Martin •

Copies of letters to SnoCap Caucus Board I message

Kathy DeWolfe < [email protected]> Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9: 50 AM • To: Janice Martin< janmartin23@gmail. com>

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kathy DeWolfe < kathy devtolfe`sothebysreaity.com> Subject: Fwd: ASSIR: Scan from Snowmass Mall Xerox Date: March 14, 2016 at 9: 52: 18 PM MDT To: Rob Sinclair <, ob@rgsorchitecture. com>, Kevin Ward < kevinpward a rnac. corn>, Patsy Batchelder patz@sopris. net>, Gib Gardner < gib. gardner© alumni amherst. edu>, Gary Beck gas ysbeckphotmail. corn>, Chelsea Brundige< chels@frrstlsghtfilms. com>, Molly Child molly child rr junc. com>, Martha Ferguson< ferguson@sopris. net>, Mark Harvey < markharv@mac corn>, Rick Heede < heed gclimatcmitigation.com>, Kevin Heinecken< kevin(a?heinecken net>, Melinda Hildebrand mhildebrand@hilhouse corn>, John McBride , Tim McFlynn < mcflynn ci?

aspendisputeresolutson. corn>, Katie Murch< outreach@aspencamp. org>, Seth Sachson clogsaspen a. sopris. net>, Helene Slansky < helr ne© soprss. net>

To SnowCap Caucus Board Members:

Poor to your meeting tomorrow. March 15, Ingrid and I wanted to make sure you were all in receipt of the letters we have received thus far regarding the proposed draft of the Master Plan. Please see the letters and Petition attached.

This was a response to a mailing of only 164 homeowners, a small fraction of the residents in the Caucus area.

Respectfully,

Kathy DeWolfe & Ingrid Antoni

1 ASSIR _Scan_,14032016_ 21_ 33_ 23. pdf 1140K

toff 7/ 24 2016 7: 19 Ii Janice Martin < janmartin23@gmail. com>

Caucus Master Plan

Janice Martin < janmartin23© gmail. com> Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8: 39 PM To: Rob Sinclair < rob@rgsarchitecture. com>

Rob,

In reviewing various definitions of" Master Plan", the two most commonly used words are" general" and guidance". In other words a Master Plan' s objective is to broadly state principles with which a community would like to adhere. It does not specify what individuals are to do. Instead it should create a context for individuals to make informed decisions by providing philosophical guidance. It provides a vision of the community' s underlying values, not specifics.

Fundamentally then, we believe the document presented by the Caucus is a departure from what a Master Plan is supposed to be. The document" encourages" and " discourages" to a degree commensurate with the CC & Rs of a HOA calling out preferred house tones, fencing, property entrances, screened storage areas, road layout and width, speed signs and snow plowing preferences, etc., even what toilet to install. Does this sound like a " Master Plan"?

The document includes two pages devoted to the wise use of water, and yet changes the current Caucus marijuana policy restricting both retail and grow operations to possibly permit " Commercial Marijuana Cultivation" upon Special Review. Does the Board have any idea how much water is required to sustain one marijuana plant? Evidently not since according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife it is Would water have determined to be six gallons per plant per day. Is this wise use of our water resource? The document to be diverted from Capitol Creek to slake the thirst of these plants? What about the wildlife'? states the Caucus" will continue to require certain plant species, cover and corridors for the protection, reproduction, movement and migration of all our native species"of its residents. We' re encouraged not to use sod, but water guzzling pot plants are no problem, and of course, our fauna are going to love the new grazing experience.

On the topic of TDRs, it would seem that the document attempts to circumvent the existing Ordinance passed by the duly elected County Commissioners. This Ordinance is widely accepted due to its ability to sterilize land which is one of the goals of the Caucus. However, by denying the ability to purchase a TDR, although allowing the sale of TDRs, the Caucus diminishes the viability of the program. If every Caucus adopts the no purchase policy, there will be no market for the TDRs, and therefore, the program will expire. This is a fundamental lack of recognition of the consequences of this half-full approach. Additionally, this" discouragement" could lead to lawsuits against both the County and the Caucus Board. To allow some people rights under a law, and deny others the use of that law amounts to discrimination. While the Caucus has Director and Officer Insurance, this secured D& type of action may not be covered. I was the one who first 0 insurance, and had a difficult time finding an insurer to cover the Caucus due to the concern of land use lawsuits. It would behoove a Board member to check the current policy to determine what exposure individual Board members might have in this matter.

While we appreciate the amount of time and effort that has gone into producing this document, it would appear that the content was derived from a homogeneous group, does not represent all the residents, and

goes far beyond what a master plan should be . We believe it should be reconsidered in light of the profound effect it could have on the residents of this valley. To protect everyone should be the goal of the effort, regardless of the time involved.

Jan and Art

7'? 720165: 154" 1 of Janice Martin

Master Plan Language

Art Martin zartmartin7@gmail. com> Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2. 01 PM To: Rob@rgsarchitecture. com Bcc: janmartin23@gmail. com

Rob,

I left you a voice message but just thought I would also email.

For starters, I would state the the communication from the Caucus in general and in particular with regard to this proposed Master Plan(" MP") has been quite poor with the effect that many people are just learning about some of these proposals. Sub- standard communication by the Caucus was admitted by the Communication Committee at the last meeting. We did not receive one email about any of this.

My wife was on the Caucus Board several years ago and she became active in part because things were being proposed that no one knew about. People didn't even know when the meetings were going to be held As a result, she set up the Caucus website and created the database for email. Obviously, we were on that list, at least at one time, but we received no communication on these matters. I am sure there are many others in the same situation. Therefore, I suggest that you adjust your schedule with regard to adoption of the MP to ensure that all concerned parties have been adequately informed before making anything final. That could take several months more than your current thinking but it is more important to get it done right than get it done quickly. It is clear that the communication to date has been inadequate.

Jan sent some comments on the MP and why it goes well beyond a true MP. Indeed, it borders, if not more, on being intrusive. I think many of the suggestions made in the MP regarding toilets, entrances, driving habits etc., etc. should go in a separate document called something like" Suggestions for Property Owners & Builders" and should NOT be used when the Caucus is making a judgernent about an application for use which judgement will be used by the County in making their determination..

Further, Jack Wilkie tells me that you are adamant that the TDR language will stay in some form. And either tougher this regard. That argument you or John McBride or someone points out that previous versions were in holds little value for many people because of the basic principle that the law of the land allows for TDR's so what was written long ago ( though not widely known) by a small group of activists should not be the standard to look to

Many people are opposed to language which discourages TDR's for philosophical reasons and because of the negative impact on property values. One suggestion might be to acknowledge that some residents including many in the Snowmass Creek Valley are open to or neutral to TDRs while others residents, perhaps more in the Capitol Creek Valley which is more densely populated, have reservations and might want to discourage their use. Maybe leave the geography out and just make it clear that there is a diversity of opinion. In any event, TDRs should be considered on a case-by- case basis and not pursuant to a blanket statement discouraging their use. A blanket statement misrepresents reality by making it sound like all or a very large majority of the residents in the Caucus area are opposed to them.

Call me at 970- 923- 377,1 if you wish to discuss this. Thanks.

Art

7' 272.016 5: 13 I` I of 1 I tom. kuvic:iy!4,.%.,i VISI .. i 5. il;, i To. kevinOJbi: akvi`;ions. net CC' suelielna' i00glncid. corn Subject Letter From Sue Helm Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 21: 42A7 + 0000

Attached and copied below is a letter from Sue Helm...

K; vin Michelson

707 Shield- 0 Rd

Snowmass, CO 81654

C i.i.i)..923. 5818 home i970)- 948. 6050 cell kevin j.puakvis ons net

To Snowmass Creek Valley Residents: July 5, 2016

I have prepared these comments in response to the ongoing call from residents in our valley for a vote on separating from the existing Snowmass/ Capitol Creek Caucus to form a new Snowmass Creek Caucus. This discussion began in response to the draft Master Plan. Now we are hearing that concerns with the present Caucus Board have grown well beyond issues with this draft.

7/ 2T2011) 5: 57 I'. comitnui u ".' u i 1: W: I, cuci Flom Sue I kiln naiLgocgle. I 2& 11 Lk! I cil)cl) kv lc \

It seems that the group favoring separation is making the same mistake that the Caucus did in their process of revising the Master Plan, namely not of This adequately keeping the residents in the forefront their planning. separation group did not share their plan with anyone they knew would question their wisdom of dividing the Caucus; nor did they publicize a vote 4th The pros until one week (on the of July) prior to the proposed meeting. and cons of this action have not been discussed with the electorate. Many have been told one point of view, but there has been no notice of a forum for all views to be heard.

The Caucus has accomplished a great deal over 30 years. It has provided leadership in the County on issues of application review, stream setbacks, pioneering environmental water rights and collaborative water management, allowances for agricultural buildings and more. Twenty years of work is too

much to discuss here, but allegations that the work to protect Snowmass Creek has been useless are far from true. The current water committee would be glad to host a special meeting to explain the protection of the Snowmass Creek stream flows and its ongoing efforts. By the way, the very capable head of the water committee lives in the Capitol Creek Valley, therefore would not be a part of this new Caucus.

caused the The expressed dissatisfaction has been heard and has Snowmass/ Capitol Creek Caucus Board to fully recognize the flaws in their, process on the Master Plan and they have decided to " hit the re- set button"' area — and hold meetings with residents of the entire Caucus as many, meetings as it takes -- to try to come to a consensus on the wishes of the, residents on any of the issues with the revised plan. They also are working on communication. ( If you provide your email updating and improving channels of address you will get information from the Caucus.)

Rather than repeat the missteps of the Caucus Board, we should work openly as neighbors to try to resolve the issues that divide our valley. Steps along those lines would be:

1st - all attend the public Caucus Board meeting on July 19th to be held at the firehouse starting at 7: 00 and have your input heard. 2nd — work with this process to see if your needs can be met or at least some satisfactory compromise be found.

31( 1 — if no agreed upon outcome can be reached, the residents of the Snowmass Creek valley could develop a process to evaluate the pros and cons of having two Caucuses, and include all residents in notice and discussion and voting.

Until a fair process is followed it seems counterproductive to throw out 25 years! of work and progress (granted everything is certainly not perfect and it won' t be with two Caucuses either) without trying to come together for the good of the whole of the two Valleys.

Because this pro-separation group will not delay this vote, they will not share e- mail contacts, nor will they entertain having a meeting to discuss the pro and cons of the issue in a transparent way, I think it is imperative that all residents who live from the ' T' in the road into the Valley up Snowmass Creek through to the Perry ranch show up on Monday, July 11 , 2016 at 7 PM at the Aspen Camp and vote NO.

We are being asked by a few undisclosed residents to make this major organized, who will be decision without knowing how a new Caucus will be running it, or what this group' s agenda will be. A vote can always be taken after these steps to try to work together if that is still desired at that time.

Please do not throw 25 years of work and collaboration away and allow a chance to work with the Caucus Board to come to some mutually acceptable resolutions. That can only be accomplished now by showing up Monday, July 11 at 7 at the Aspen Camp and voting NO.

If you have questions, please call or e- mail. Thanks for your care, concern, and

attention. Gmai - FW: Ma From Sue I! elm littps:// mail. google. conilmaillui(Oui , 24k i - 4 I ddI elhe9& i w pi& q

Sincerely yours,

Sue Helm

970- 923- 3131

suehelm1 © gmail. com

final letter to residents.docx LJ 21K

i Janice Martin

Sue' s letter

Janice Martin < janmartin23@gmail. com> Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7. 58 PM Bcc: Kathy DeWolfe < [email protected]>

Kevin,

I could not read Sue' s letter concerning the Caucus without responding to a few misstatements and a lack of recognition as to the information effort undertaken by the committee to separate.

Sue is correct when she indicates that the reasons for separation have grown beyond the Master Plan. It ultimately is rooted in a lack of trust of the existing Caucus fueled by no communication, divisiveness, and overreach.

She states that " residents were not in the forefront of our planning" to separate, and that the " plan was not shared with anyone they knew would question their wisdom of dividing the Caucus". This is patently untrue as evidenced by emails, phone conversations, and even copying Sue on an email to her husband Bob concerning the matter. She had more that adequate notice regarding the movement to separate as did almost everyone else in the valley. As you know a presentation was made to your Board regarding the initiative where everything was discussed openly. The scores of letters supporting separation are evidence of notification of valley residents.

In my 2 hour conversation with Sue two days ago, she stated that I should have had someone from the Caucus with me when I spoke of separation. The facts are this. Before we started our outreach campaign, I met with John McBride, the chairperson of the Master Plan committee. After our hour long meeting we both concluded separation was the best alternative. Rob Sinclair, the Caucus president was then informed of our intention as was another Board member. Following that notification we began our outreach which has continued for over a month. The fact that the existing Caucus did not is due to their lack of commitment. It is not our purpose to provide a " forum" for the Caucus anymore than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is required to provide an alternative point of view to their potential voters. To me it is a further sign of the Caucus' s dysfunction that they didn't initiate an outreach program. Frankly, I can't think of a pro to staying. We did not make the same mistake' as the Caucus". In fact we communicated with as many people as possible. This is in stark contract to the existing Caucus who didn't bother with anyone' s opinion in the 18 months they worked on the plan.

On June 14th the existing Caucus planned to hold a public forum to vote on the proposed Master Plan. In other words after writing and re-writing the plan for a year and a half, and evidently being in concert on its contents, they were ready for a vote. Why didn' t it happen? Because they didn't bother to " notice" any of the public about the meeting . further dysfunction. f was the one who pointed it out to them. Suddenly, they realized that our initiative had momentum, and for the first time wanted our input. It would appear that the " re- set" is rooted not in a common philosophy, but in the realization that an alternative was available to the residents. We are now supposed to see if there is a way toward compromise. Where was that spirit this winter when over 50 letters were sent to the Caucus expressing displeasure at the proposed Plan? Where was that spirit when over 50 people attended the March meeting where only 3 or 4 people were allowed to speak, and then the matter was tabled. Over 50 residents go to a meeting and are told the matter will be discussed later. It is no wonder that people don't trust the Caucus Board. I repeat, only when it was demonstrated that an alternative was available, did the move to hear the residents materialize.

We appreciate the work of the Board over the years and in particular Sue' s great energy and drive to protect the Creek. This issue is much broader, and it' s about the present. It concerns trust and representation. We

I el"? 7 27 2016 5: 26 :"' plan to work with the Capitol Creek caucus on matters of common interest including the Creek or any other common matter that may arise. We would like to control our own destiny and not leave it in the hands of an insular group who demonstrates disregard for their neighbors' opinions, and a propensity to overreach into the properties of others.

Jan Martin 923- 3774

2oP2 7. 2720165: 16 r, Janice Martin < [email protected]>

Snowmass- Capitol Creek Caucus

Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6: 17 PM Mark Harvey < markhary@mac. com> To: [email protected] Cc: Martha Ferguson < ferguson@sopris. net>, " John B. Clark" < johnclark7037@gmail. com>, Mindy Hildebrand mhildebrand@hilhouse. com>, Katie Murch< Katie@aspencamp. org>, Gary Beck< [email protected]>, Patsy Batchelder < patz@sopris. net>, Gib Gardner < gib. gardner@alumni. amherst. edu>, " molly. child@juno. com" com>, Seth Sachsen < dogsaspen@sopris net>, Sue Helm molly. child@juno. com>, ward kevin < kevinpward@mac. suehelm1@gmail corn>, Chelsea Congdon Brundige < chels@capitolcreek. com>, ' Robert G. Sinclair"

rob@rgsarchitecture. com>, Rick Heede < heede@climatemitigation. com>, Tim McFlynn

mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution. com>, John Mcbride < jpmcb@rof. net>, Kevin Heinecken

Kevin@heinecken. net>, Helene < helene@sopris. net>

Dear Jan,

I' m writing in regard to your effort to form a new, separate Snowmass caucus. Quite a few of us on the board did not receive notice of this directly from you, including the board president Rob Sinclair, Is there a reason we were omitted from your correspondence? It seems to me that if you have real grievances with the current caucus, the first thing you would do is contact the board president and board members. And I cannot imagine any reason why every board member would not be intentionally notified.

I will be blunt here by saying that I think you're making a big mistake pursuing this vote without notifying active members of the caucus, not giving the greater community adequate time to discuss the issue, and not even listing in writing your complaints about our current direction. I have spoken to quite a number of Snowmass and Capitol Creek residents who are very unhappy about how this is playing out. I am one of them. You might be surprised by the energetic correspondence circulating among both long- time and new residents of the valley. Reading the correspondence, I have to tell you that your efforts are alienating and divisive, which is unfortunate for all.

The Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus is by no means a perfect political body. Over the years mistakes have been made, people have disagreed vigorously over issues, feelings have been hurt. But on the whole the caucus has done good, solid work on logging issues, water quality, in- stream flows, land use planning, wildlife habitat preservation, roads, energy conservation, air quality, and more. If I' m not mistaken it has been some thirty years of meetings, where ranchers, second- home owners, ski patrollers, captains of industry, hard- of-hearing, hippies, and rednecks have gathered to discuss issues, trade ideas, share a pot luck, and usually swap stories about a gorgeous morning or a bull elk in their back yard. Yes, there has been bickering, but also— in the spirit of the two valleys— an eagerness to remain friends and stay together as one group.

Perhaps the caucus' s most important function has been that of a clearing house and a meeting point. Part town hall, part chautauqua, part grange.

The trouble with splitting up a group with this long history ( over what I consider to be resolvable issues) is that if something else contentious comes up in a new smaller caucus, splitting again will be a temptation. Breaking things apart is seductive and much easier than having a good discussion and finding a common direction. But it also fractures

5: 22 1" I oft 7272016 the community.

Things don't always go the way one wants in these organizations. Personally I' ve had frustrations with certain land use issues that affect our ranch. It left me annoyed, but I spoke directly with the caucus members with whom I disagreed, and while we never fully saw eye to eye on the item, I understood their point of view, and they, mine. We are still friends, and we agree on other issues. Life goes on.

We get that you are unhappy with the master plan. The board has expressed a willingness to work on listening, communicating and making things better. Maybe you are unhappy with other things too, but, as a board member who doesn't miss too many meetings, I' ll be darned if I' ve heard those grievances.

I don' t think it' s wise whatsoever to try to hastily bust apart an association this long in the making— an association formed by some of the valley's legends and kept active by dozens and dozens of well meaning volunteers.

I would urge you to reconsider your plans and this vote. I predict that it will ultimately backfire ( up or down), lead to unnecessary strife in the community. and be hugely time consuming in what is to everyone precious summer days

Sincerely yours;

Mark Harvey

of2 7 27 2015: 22P" ` Janice Martin < janmartin23@gmail. com>

Snowmass- Capitol Creek Caucus

Janice Martin Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 10: 37 PM To: Mark Harvey < markhary@mac. com> Cc: Martha Ferguson < ferguson@sopris. net>, " John B. Clark"< johnclark7037@gmail. com>, Mindy Hildebrand mhildebrand@hilhouse. com>, Katie Murch< Katie@aspencamp. org>, Gary Beck < garysbeck@hotmail. corn>, Patsy Batchelder < patz@sopris. net>, Gib Gardner< gib. gardner@alumni. amherst. edu>, " molly.child@juno. com" com>, Sachsen< dogsaspen@sopris. net>, Sue Helm molly. child@juno. com>, ward kevin< kevinpward@mac. Seth suehelm1@gmail. corn>, Chelsea Congdon Brundige< chels@capitolcreek. corn>, " Robert G. Sinclair"

rob@rgsarchitecture. corn>, Rick Heede < heede@climatemitigation. com>, Tim McFlynn

mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution, com>, John Mcbride < jpmcb@rof. net>, Kevin Heinecken

Kevin@heinecken. net>, Helene < helene@sopris. net>

Mark,

The day after the May meeting I wrote a letter outlining my concerns as requested by Rob Sinclair. After receiving no response I met with the Master Plan Chair, John McBride where we discussed at length the differing attitudes of the two valleys and both concluded that going our separate ways was the best alternative. Following that I informed ROB SINCLAIR of our intentions. He has been in the loop the entire way since at the May meeting he told me that was the procedure of the current caucus. We have had numerous conversations following my meeting with John. Shortly thereafter, I spoke to Tim McFlynn about our intentions. It is not my place to individually inform every Board member about what is going on, and demonstrates to me that the Board doesn't communicate among themselves any better than they communicate with the residents of the valleys which is why we are where we are today.

Evidently, you missed the meeting where over fifty letters were presented to the Board objecting to the Master Plan as well as the March meeting where fifty some residents showed up and the Master Plan topic was tabled because it was stated a survey would follow along with a data base for communication, etc. None of this materialized. I know you were at the May meeting when I and others spoke of our dissatisfaction because I sat behind you. The problem Mark is that no one trusts this Board due to lack of follow through, not to mention the divisiveness driven by inappropriate statements and emails of Board members with no consequences. The fact that you discuss hiring someone to do elementary tasks because a 17 member volunteer Board can't find anyone to work for it is not encouraging.

I sincerely believe there was a time when consensus could be reached, but the Board missed the opportunity by ignoring protestations of the residents. It smacks of smugness. Remember you were ready to approve the Master Plan three weeks ago at the scheduled June 14 meeting. That meeting was not cancelled because you were looking to finally get input from residents. No, it never occurred because in typical fashion the Board didn't bother to inform the public of the meeting and didn't realize it until the last minute when I pointed it out to John McBride.

The dissatisfaction of the residents is squarely on the shoulders of this Board. If we separate we hope to be good neighbors and cooperate on common issues. Hopefully, the Board will take a good, hard look at itself, identify its short comings, and learn from them to become a better Board for the residents of Capitol Creek.

Jan

Quoted text hidden]

I of I 7,27. 2016 5: 23 P', NiJanice Martin 01atiorarrintaeonstier pow

Snowmass- Capitol Creek Caucus

ti01 frI la, 7010 Of S Oh PM Mort HArooy, ou?kccovihmac TO" jaien. tin2seg, ano 1X11. 1... innerma0;234Noxix nom. corns Much. o,,,,, Co Molho Few:ntoon nhwrowonenoowIs not,,' Join 6 CloW njonnclorit76370gowil Minty fileet, tred, rteidebrantretahnise oar, Katie hotioQnsperenrrip Gory nark ogiwystecluthorovis con.. Patsy tleichokler iinol7Sgsoorre nuts Gib Gordrwe aged ger dnele,Ookres anVeAl ecru>.' rrellx.ctdfrertrio tom'< may chef ewe coon, Key ekeinnerwergernac t(W.1. Seth Sachsen qlogstripeneseprin nels. Sur Hoko switekelitsenail corns. Chebea(..:Orgeon( Pending, chetsfalcoorloictoot corns,' Robed C Sinclair. robergsstetifectsre corns. trick Heed.< lboadeeternoterribgalion come. McFhen To.. enerlyissgosaareinnoteresairakon torn., John Mofy, Ju. 9teriebitiol not>. Key 11(0.10106w,, KowniShemeckan nets! item 0heeneCloens° et>. Kenn Michelson* loreogaeoltiessins nets, Dave toss i,dayterroagnwl.corn. 004)1 0 Claes Stoner' o'. 30061(1600 nolo

Jan

los/ nava sone( welly Aloha 0,0010( 0 the port orwere,e of nes caucus your response below and oho in a killer la Sie Holm 900600's what elections no for Most 0( 110 sneers inerreeeis presently Serena have served ler yew* they' ve been elocieel 004 reok.g.tud Heinernbor that crony al ho smart board you ere so unhappy moth are nom yea 0/40 of Ito volloy. Snowiness Creek. So yaw complaints, logs/ nate of nol rove hoc kr do wen geography and nom 10 do wet, what you consider eaneguato board eorresiseaso Thal boat the OW:Sten: Whale sir)( auger% lo en0 these super horn mond o00ntor@ 0000( 110,001 p001 01 people nal 11010110 Sneentass crook whey when last yeru-s olecten saw only coupe at new speicares. Cones, no if I' m wrong, but lest year' 7 90000 ten for 17 sic. 1(10year botora. 1$(' 00( 10 ten ho' It£0110

I1V0411 IMICFS yon dev riled the board as' smug nog Imola(' end you have questioned hair trustivultiness 0,0 corrvelnent When think of a twelve sonstrev of people on Ile board poorer, sato Gib Garret, Vote 141.. C., Sachsen Choksoa Ceylon to Martha Ferguson. sorry but none of those adjectives cane le nine. I see on,of those neettott showing 09 10 ineet, sni with stvglenental oxygen and a good altitude one who shows wroth o special deaf interpreter end offers tier fooklies for enocus meetings. one who generolory hosts coatis ferties on land every year, one vele 0015 o hock of a of of limo Oln orgiusiing cwols and raising funds. and orsu vile less become a ventablo water Isolopist In he;; Mutt of postectvg the creek total go down tie lel of Ihe entire bond 1,0 001 who hos{ HA or encaess hours bringing broadband 10, 1(11

sorrel,lier go, who* ways shows Op to ... It... Ie.,* 40 hosts tho guy who p10105 1* Osage the hoar osees etc owl ricoetx one honestly lot writes for-ouoy 504)10000 0( Mimi Servo, rosulor wet ontrosherinhy? Tinos ate very shore) swans onota yaw retention who do bora to volunteer lost serve the valley

To rap Ova. lieVre all ionly taco.' wet poop-n. whet, 011. 50 asnorogions earls fro a lat. I' m veer bui 001440 160 hot 40 00, glow en hens in eller volkey oar 0, they deserve yew dension MA ala-..ntl of thons- ail of in. deserve to IVY.° been irentrnoil about( 05 0010 deeetly.... hour yard

oar. i' or sorry that W011, 411 lite 4th, your expected-ors 00 00 sold 03114 potions erisset e very Impeded potecai body 011, 00 frotolt ao I good 000o19k) I 014040( 0.seta Convenes lad year to torpArkt fwv,60IWOO Ifirowi0001 OW Iwo vaeoys 01 our feco and Issra and Ire issues del affect thew Motile My work IS the coneettoe chair icoo ot fits air; stens rlopgivhng no haw neck lane I haw, 1( 1100 was a lot, prat blames%I 4)0144 0000 boon toed In the fast we morels 1300 les a volonfoce organ/mean wows people nave foritod erne And even with envied IMIO and locos the Biota Cortwilloe bras fatted some interestrg loves, Naugle a new earsoeceve. Down Ile 1000 a teller tlas we agleam Thi.

With reliant to who toceOng* chianti Metyde, ray respect and winoloison In, Jot.& VIM& 1 ilniong) a ronversolion between you two 911001 II,, gosirrios of ifin( VIII volleys does on; kvitinszo a vole noon ins 13. 11, MI1001110011i0111 no, Omelets.,, Ord esp./Citify VoltsAll notifying Comte residents 00 onto th. huiP," Mho.

Jo0. it you rattly wunt at: outline le awed your enswges nici. you nigh) 0,001( 0 consider things 1101 00150,0 beyond ea Resler( doll A0100+110 0s los camas woo o( otorry appears Inoro 010 000,0 Warning trends atnow Aspen Ire eels soverel married species end Questionable washy 0( 110, arsronnere 05 000 know it The Bela Comrsilloe, has made two oresentelere. on( hoot 41401 In the( 00 1,00,0 unit run unnerve) 1-es hoe* These 1, 00,ft 0.0 OW/111110 00000 far more Ilion things Pe( Deis. oven if III n tine 111Me Layette] ow hes

Ws too tingle wrvnur nivide.- 1010 1, 01. 1110y 110,s1rey In convexity over the melte ole trospage master plan

ncere'r Pa.' s

itrieey

11, 0

n.,.., I S., i

10. 1.". tor Armin: 41; 1, os,, O., 01100, 1

Julttnzin

1497. 400k

1.•, i I O.

1 of 3 7127,-2016 5: 30 P1 Janice Martin

Snowmass- Capitol Creek Caucus

Janice Martin < janmartin23@gmail. com> Mon, Jul ' 11, 2016 at 7: 36 AM To: Mark Harvey < markharv@mac. com> com>, Tim Bcc: Lesa Thomas < lesa@aspencamp. org>, John and Rosemary Lowenberg < jI3333 c@mindspring. McFlynn < mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution. com>

Mark,

I appreciate your sentiments, but would like to offer a perspective. You seem to direct all your anger at an individual, and while I understand that since I am the voice of the other side, wouldn't it be more productive to reflect on why there is so much dissatisfaction among so many residents that they are willing to propose seceding from this Caucus? This isn' t about the history of the Caucus, it isn't about whether people are nice nobody said they weren't), it is about ignoring concerns of the residents time and again until a drastic initiative was undertaken. You cite the positive efforts made by this Board. but how would anybody know about them? Where are the minutes?

Regarding John and my discussion, we didn't leave that meeting saying this is it, we' re going to secede Residents were canvassed to see if this would be something of interest. When the response was a resounding yes", I informed the Board president which is proper communication procedure when dealing with a Board.

This endeavor emanated from " locals" who were distressed by this Board who ignored their point of view throughout the winter.

As I continue to mention, if we do separate, we hope to work cooperatively with the existing Caucus on matters of common interest.

Jan

Forwarded message From: Janice Martin <]anmartin2.3@gmail. comn> Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6: 40 AM Subject: Re, Snowmass- Capitol Creek Caucus To: Mark Harvey < markharv@mac corn>

Quoted text hidden]

I of 72720165: 29 P' CilAilll- Caucus separation vote 1111JS.- 111011. l.A, 8•4... vnt luu. r 411,)

t L,AI

Janice Martin

Caucus separation vote

Janice Martin < janmartin23@gmail. com> Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8: 21 PM Bcc: kevin@peakvisions. net

Snowmass Creek Residents,

Thank you for your overwhelming support in favor of separating from the existing Snowmass/ Capitol Creek Caucus to form a new Snowmass Creek Caucus. After meeting with the staff of the Community Development Department of Pitkin County and advising them of our desire to separate, we were told that in order to comply with Article IV of the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter, we needed to have a special meeting to formally vote to separate. In other words, despite the scores of letters of support the Charter requires an in- person vote.

Therefore, we are advising you that a meeting will be held on July 11, 7 PM at Aspen Camp, 4862 Snowmass Creek Road, to conduct the formal vote. A simple majority of qualified electors in attendance is required. To date approximately 85% of the residents in the Valley from the Capitol Creek Rd./ Snowmass Creek Rd, 15% have been advised intersection have been personally contacted regarding this initiative. The remaining through email of the effort.

We look forward to your input regarding this matter, and hope you will be able to attend the meeting. Please feel free to contact us via phone or e- mail if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

The Snowmass Creek Caucus Committee

970) 923- 3774

4: I 111 i 7 30' 2016 39 Gmail- Caucus e- mail, July 7 https: ' mail.google.com/nuaiNwu;.' ul C iti..41 as l craeYIIY ICN ptd..bC.

9t 1; z c41 t1

Janice Martin < janmartin23@gmail. com>

Caucus e- mail, July 7

Kathy DeWolfe < kathy. [email protected]> Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4 33 PM To. Jan Martin < [email protected]>

From: Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus < alert@snowcapcaucus org> Subject: July Meetings Date: July 7, 2016 at 9: 25: 05 AM MDT To: <<: wolfe.a.%cire. con 1> Reply- To: < alert@snowcapcaucus. org>

S } P Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus

Dear Friends and Neighbors:

As a follow up to my email from last week. it has come to our attention that some residents of Old Snowmass are calling a meeting on July 11th at 7PM at the Deaf Camp to discuss creating a separate Caucus area for the 1 ( Snowmass Creek Valley.

i For over 30 years the Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus has worked on behalf of all residents to preserve the character of our valley.

Most recently, we drafted an update to the Master Plan as requested by Pitkin County. Again, we recognize that our process was flawed and have already scheduled a meeting on July 19th at 7PM at the Fire Station, to re-visit and solicit input from all of our constituents.

Both of these meetings are very important and I would encourage everyone who is interested to attend and express their opinion.

Contact me any time in the interim. You can always reach my cell 970 948 1 4269 or email robArgsarchitecture. com On behalf of the Board,

Rob Sinclair, Chair

Caucus Contact Information I I Website: http:// www.snowcapcaucus. orq

Join Our Mailing Usti)

Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus, P. O. Box 507, Snowmass, CO 81654

SafeUnsubscribeTM kdewolfe@clre. com

Forward this email I Update Profile l About our service provider Sent by alert@snowcapcaucus. org in collaboration with

Constant contact ,

Try it free today

r? 7/ 31; 2016 6: 48 f3 4ILk] Ictbe9& imail ( no subject) https:: nnaiI. guogle. com-maiLu/ 0:? ui 2& ik icw pt& q

24 i?CI u.e t.ts

Janice Martin

no subject) 3 messages

Janice Martin < janmartin23@gmail. com> Fri Jul 8, 2016 at 4: 46 PM To. Rob Sinclair < rob@rgsarchitecture, com>

Rob,

You have sent more emails and a mailing concerning a VOTE, not a meeting on July 11 than the caucus has sent in a year. You need to clear this up. We have discussed that this is a vote of the people in the Snowmass Creek Valley. Therefore, the residents of Capitol Creek will not be admitted any more than residents of Woody Creek would be admitted to the voting area. There will be people available to answer questions, including Sue Helm I assume, because she is a resident of the valley, and any other Snowmass valley resident that cares to opine. . Current Capitol Creek Board members and other residents from that side will not be admitted. All you are doing is confusing people.

I have phoned you twice today to discuss this and haven't got a return call.

Jan

Robert Sinclair < rob@rgsarchitecture. com> Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 506 PM To Janice Martin < janmartin23@gmail. com>

Ilij'\N

I I 1\ 1 L ilf rN fti D UI' ON joesiTGS OUT OF TI IC. OrFIL[... jusT COT t11CK. Ti ii b\ MAT I C_OMI'OSID.

Dear Friends and Neighbors:

As a follow up to my email from last week. it has come to our attention that some residents of Old Snowmass.; are calling a meeting on July 11th at 7PM at the Deaf Camp to discuss creating a separate Caucus area for the Snowrrass Creek Valley.

For over 30 years the Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus has worked on behalf of all residents to preserve th<: character of our valley

Most recently, we drafted an update to the Master Plan as requested by Pitkin County Again. we recognize, thr l our prof.':ss was Ii-::°Jed and have aireaci7 scheduled a meeting on July 19th at rPM at the Fire Station, to r c- visi: and solicit input from ail of our constituents

Al.' 729' 2016 6: 50 int

Both of these meetings are very important and I would encourage everyone who is interested to attend and express their opinion

Contact me any time in the interim. You can always reach my cell 970 948 4269 or email roh@rgsarchitecture. corn

On behalf of the Board,

Rot) Sinclair, Char

I ft Li AN OBLIGATION AS CURRENT CHAIR TO ADVISE. ALL OUR CONSTITUENTS ABOUT THIS AND WE I IAD PROMISED A SNAIL MAIL. NOTICE. FOR OUR. MEETING ON THE 19m. I DONT HAVE A MECHANISM 10 EMAIL. ONLY TO SNONMASs Cr EEL RESIDENTS.

IOU CAN RUN nil MEETING/VOTE:AS lOU SEC En. { AM NOT SUGGESTING ANVTI IING MORE TI•IAN INTERESTED PARTIES ATTEND 10 UNDERSTAND TI IC ISSUES. SURELY THERE WILL BE PEOPLE THERE WITH QU[ I' IONS ABDLII 11 If: SPE.11 BEFORE THEY VOTE?

ARC OU REQUESTING TI VCT I WITI( DRAW THIS?

AS LUCK WOULD I! AVE IT, I WILL BC OUT Of TOWN,

MUNI,' Ol.1,

lkoti

RcnrR1 C.`` INC: t. AIR., Al,A

RCM AR.CIIiTECT IRJ

POST OJTICL 13O\ 8114

r 1a;- ni6 F• sn Janice Martin

no subject)

Janice Martin Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6: 48 AM To. Robert Sinclair < rob@rgsarchitecture. com>

Rob,

I am requesting you clarify this to those in the Capitol Creek valley that this is a VOTE of our valley, and as such they will not be permitted in the polling place.

Jan

Quoted text hidden)

7- 20 2016 6: 53 ' I ofI R

iu; y1, 2016

Dear Friends and Neighbors: The Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus Board held a special meeting on June 21 to discuss the process in drafting the Caucus Master Plan revision.

it was agreed that, while well intended, our process and communication did not adequately solicit the opinions of the broader Caucus Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus NONPROFIT constituency on the important issues this document addresses. PO Box 507 ORc U. S Postage With this in mind, we plan to re- visit and solicit input from all of Snowmass, Colorado 81654 P SNOWMASS visit us at sr:.owcaocaucus. our constituents at our meeting on July Ig at 7pm at the Fire org COLO. 81654 Station. Permit NO. 3 Please come having read the current draft of the Master Pian which is available on the website: www.snocapcaucus. org it has also come to our attention that some residents of Old Snow- mass are calling a meeting to discuss creating a separate Caucus area for the Snowmass Creek Valley. To: Snowmass Resident For over 30 years the Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus has worked on behalf of all residents to preserve the character of our entire valley. Snowmass, Colorado 81654 It is very important to attend this meeting on July 11th at 7pm at the Deaf Camp and express your opinion about this proposal to Split the Caucus. Both of these meetings are very important and I would encourage everyone who is interested to attend. In the meantime, feel free to contact me with questions. You can always reach my cell 970 945 4269 or email rob rgsarch tecture.com Or behalf of the Board,

Rob Sinclair, Chair, Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus C--_ 31,1 t: i i' i _'=,;(t

Janice Martin

FYI

D. D. Gerdin < ddgerdin@sopris. net> Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 9: 02 AM To: acarr@aspenreinfo. com, ajsherman56@hotmail. com, ajsherman56@hotmailcom, Anna Covers

anna@forrefineart. com>, annaday@rof. net, baierprescott@hotmail. com, barbform@earthlink. net, betsyrleach@gmail. corn, [email protected], chateausnowmass@gmail. corn, chateauway@aol corn, ddgerdin@sopris. net, dhiser@photoaspen. com, frieman@fnad. gov, gcovers@yahoo. corn, janine@scenerental. com, jnovak@cityinterests. com, [email protected], len. olender@gmail. corn, lenforman@mac. com, lenforman@me. corn, malibukj@aol. com, mamasmeeve@gmail. corn, mjj938@gmail. corn, phil@durango. net. au, reeseharold@yahoo. com, seaplanejohn@juno. com, syds. design@grnail. com, sydtofany@aol. com, [email protected], tom@performanceskiaspen. com, vgerdin@sopris. net

Cc: joysan@sopris. net, Sue Helm < suehelm1 @gmail. com>, janmartin23@gmail. corn

Dear SOM property owners,

I am emailing to let you know and give you a chance to participate in the upcoming election for the Snowmass Creek Caucus. This has nothing to do with the SOM Road Association I have been asked by a few people involved to forward information to you concerning the vote tomorrow to separate into a Snowmass Creek caucus. I do not feel comfortable forwarding the many emails and information to each of you since this is not a road matter.

However, this is your opportunity to get involved by contacting them directly to give them your email for more information.

If you want more information concerning this subject and would like to attend the meeting tomorrow, here is the contact information.

Janice Martin janmaytin23grnali. corn and Sue Helm sueheirni r;grnar,.corn

I hope summer is treating you all well,

Best regards,

D. D. Gerdin

I of I 7 30 2016 4: 27 P` Janice Martin

Caucus separation vote

Janice Martin ,: janmartin23@gmail. com> Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8: 21 PM Bcc kevin@peakvisions. net

Snowmass Creek Residents,

Therefore, we are advising you that a meeting will be held on July 11, 7 PM at Aspen Camp, 4862 Snowmass Creek Road, to conduct the formal vote. A simple majority of qualified electors in attendance is required. To date approximately 85% of the residents in the Valley from the Capitol Creek Rd / Snowmass Creek Rd. intersection have been personally contacted regarding this initiative. The remaining 15% have been advised through email of the effort.

We look forward to your input regarding this matter, and hope you will be able to attend the meeting. Please feel free to contact us via phone or e- mail if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

The Snowmass Creek Caucus Committee

970) 923- 3774

44 I of 7 31 2016 1: P' Janice Martin < janmartin23@gmail. corn>

Caucus separation vote

Kevin Michelson < kevin@peakvisions net> The, Jul 5, 2016 at 6: 45 AM To Janice Martin

Jon,

I was just passing along the message, and copied you so that you could see that the message went out.

Best,

Kevin

From: Janice Martin [ mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 9: 17 PM To: Kevin Michelson < Kevin@peakvisions. net> Subject: Re: FW: Caucus separation vote

Quoted text htdden1

1: 451"', I of 1 7' 31' 2016 To: Rob Sinclair

From: John McBride

Re: Master Plan Comments

Date: March 7, 2016

Rob;

It saddens me that so many of the Snowmass Creek residents are not only disappointed with the revised master plan, but are angry about it. To them, it is a " taking". One resident even feels it should be a requirement to be a property owner to be on the caucus board. No renters allowed, because the purpose of the board should be to protect owner' s investments.

In the Capitol Creek Valley, the response has been 98% positive. Perhaps, this is because the valley is inhabited almost entirely by full time residents. The Snowmass Creek area seems dominated by" second home owners".

I see two possible solutions to this conflict:

1. Bifurcate the two areas. After all, almost all caucuses are identified by one drainage. Witness: Castle Creek, Maroon Creek, Woody Creek and the Frying Pan caucuses. Keep the revised Master Plan for Capitol Creek and let Snowmass Creek write their own or just hang on to the existing one, which many Snowmass Creek residents do not think exists.

2. Allow the Snowmass Creek area to write their own master plan. After all, the volunteers on my committee who wrote the revised plan are all from the Capitol Creek side- Chelsea, Martha, Rick, Helene, Patsy and myself. No on from the Snowmass Creek side offered to serve. This might make for a happier community, albeit still under one caucus.

Even though, I personally may have more to lose financially from our new master plan, I feet the most important purpose of the plan is to protect and maintain the character and the unblemished landscape of where we live.

This attitude, I suspect, comes from my spending a fair amount of time in the Alps of Switzerland, Austria and Germany, as well as the French Pyrenees. I had been hopeful that our caucus could protect and preserve our landscape, as have so many beautiful resorts and communities in Europe.

I am sorry so many residents of Snowmass Creek put investment and speculation above all else to the detriment of place, but that is their right.

John McBride i

Dear Board Members,

First. Thanks for your work on the Master Plan and thanks for the work product. I think you captured the consensus of Members ( landowners and residents) of the caucus area.

We all came to these wonderful valleys for the habitat and the experience they provided and the preservation of that experience is captured as a central theme of the Master Plan.

Second. Through the process of developing this Plan, I have received from the Board ( or at the Board' s direction) notices of the various meetings as well as links to the drafts of the Plan as it changed. While I live in Fort Worth, Texas, I felt I could have participated as much as I desired.

Third. I was disturbed by the notice for this next Board meeting, where the Board listed five " process failures". I don' t think the list is accurate. For example, I understand that the county planners did get involved. Whatever process failures were involved, I feel they were minor and should not detract from the great work of the Board. If there are disagreements about the Plan, they should be aired and resolved. Let' s don' t start chasing

rabbits.

Fourth. The Plan and actions taken under the Plan are not binding on Pitkin County and are advisory only. The Plan should reflect the consensus of the members, and I believe it does.

Sincerely,

Garland Lasater Nickelson Creek Ranch 8/ 15/ 2016 Pitkin County Mail- Attempt at a Caucus Split in Old Snowmass

Ni- t Ellen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

Attempt at a Caucus Split in Old Snowmass 2 messages

Martha Ferguson < ferguson@sopris. net> Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 5: 43 PM To: patti. [email protected], rachel. [email protected], michael. [email protected], Steve Child steve. child@pitkincounty. com>, george. newman@pitkincounty. com, jon. [email protected], attorney@pitkincounty. com, cindy.houben@pitkincounty. com, Ellen. [email protected]

Dear Pitkin County Staff and Board of County Commissioners, I am writing as a concerned resident of Old Snowmass with reference to a recent "vote" instigated by certain disgruntled property owners wanting to split the Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus in two. While I am on the SnowCap Board, I am writing as an individual with a personal request that Pitkin County review and investigate the procedure and process, or lack thereof, of that vote.

There are numerous violations of what I would call my constitutional right to fair representation and vote:

The Pltkin County Home Rule Charter provides a section on establishment of caucuses, and states: An information campaign shall be conducted to ensure that all qualified electors and non- resident real property owners in the proposed caucus area know of the date, time, place and purpose of the meeting. This section does not really address the splitting up of a caucus already in place for over 30 years, however even so, the ' information campaign' conducted by the group wanting to split needs to provide bona fide and actual documentation that they contacted every qualified elector/ property owner in the proposed new area. I know for a fact that at least one qualified full-time elector who is also on the current Caucus board never received notice of information on the subject of a split nor voting information. Also, if there was an official proposed caucus area boundary, it was never made public so that electors could figure out if they were included and could vote!

The Pitkin County Home Rule Charter also states in section 4. 5: There shall be only one ( 1) recognized caucus in each geographic area. Many would argue that all of Old Snowmass is one geographic drainage. Does the fact that there are two creeks running through the one drainage change that definition? Perhaps it should be decided based on the official Old Snowmass boundaries ( Snowmass, Colorado 81654) that define it clearly as a geographic place on the map. If that is the case, the law does not allow for a second caucus in this area.

I don' t see the rules as to how long in advance of the establishment of a new caucus that notifications needs to be given, but it has to be a reasonable amount of time so that residents within the area can plan ( or change plans) for attendance. This group kept the "vote" so silent and under wraps that the general electorate had very limited time to make sure they could be in attendance to vote (however, supporters of the split were given weeks if not months to make sure they were present). One person I know within the so-called boundaries was told that she could not submit a proxy or absentee ballot even though she wanted to vote but could not be present due to such short notice. Is this due

process?

I live within in the boundaries of the Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus and feel that I should have had a right to vote on a split that would create changes where I live, and affect me. Further, the group trying to split were conducting their business within the established Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus boundaries, thus it seems they would be required to abide by the ByLaws of that Caucus until they become a recognized separate caucus. Section 13a of the SnowCap ByLaws states: 13. ( a) Meeting Open to the Public:

All meetings of the Board shall be open to all members and to the public.

Wouldn' t that mean that any " official" meeting conducted within the boundaries of our Caucus be bound to follow the same principles? I. e., announce and conduct a meeting open to the public and more specifically, all residents and property owners of Old Snowmass? If this new caucus intends to be a public entity, shouldn' t they start by holding public meetings, allow for ample notification, be transparent and above- board with their intentions? The only notifications that most of us saw- including a sign outside the door of the voting venue- were those telling any outsiders that they were barred from entry nor would have a chance at discussion or debate. As mentioned above many people did not know if they were in the boundaries or not because that information had not been publicized.

search= cat& th= 155f0f1 bbc6336f0&si m I=... 1/ 2 https:// m ai I. google.com/ mai I/ u/ 0/? ui= 2& ik= 7e03948784& vi ew= pt& cat= snow m ass% 20caucus% 20recognition% 20E1y& 8/15/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Attempt at a Caucus Split in Old Snowmass In short, the group instigating a split have failed miserably at basic due process, notification, guarantee of representation and voting rights. The whole process from my perspective has felt like a sham. Based on arguments above, I urge you all to take a hard look and dig into the facts as to whether it is even legal to form a new caucus within the (Old) Snowmass geographical boundaries, whether due process was served, whether mandatory democratic procedure was followed and not abused.

Thank you for your time.

Martha Ferguson

search= cat& 155f0f1 bbc6336f0& si m 1=... 2/2 https:// mail. google.com/ mai I/ u/0/? ui= 2& i k= 7e03948784& view= pt& cat= snowm ass% 20caucus% 20recognition% 20E1y& th= 8/ 17/2016 Pitkin County Mail- FW: Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus

Ellen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

FW: Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus 1 message

John Ely Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10: 51 PM To: Ellen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

For packet

Confidentiality Notice This e- mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e- mail transmission was sent as indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information contained in this e- mail transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please call us collect to arrange for the return of the documents to us at our expense. Thank you

John M. Ely Pitkin County Attorney 970-920- 5190

From: Cindy Houben [ mailto: cindy.houben@pitkincounty. com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 12: 01 PM To: John Ely Subject: Fwd: Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus

Forwarded message----- From: Helene Slansky< helene@sopris. net> Date: Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9: 57 AM Subject: Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus To: jon. [email protected] Cc: Cindy Houben < cindy.houben@pitkincounty. com>, Robert Sinclair< rob@rgsarchitecture. com>

Hi Jon,

Please distribute this in the BOCC packets for discussion on the split in our caucus.

Thanks you, Helene Slansky

To the Pitkin County Commissioners:

I am a 46 year resident of the Valley, 20 in Capitol Creek. I am a board member of the Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus but am writing as a resident, not on behalf of the board. I think it valuable to shed light on the process, or lack of it, that has precipitated the recent effort to divide our 40 year old caucus. If the caucus is to be divided it should be done by a fair, open and transparent process. This has not been the case.

https:// mail. google. com/ m ai I/ u/0/? ui= 2& ik= 7e03948784& view= pt& search= i nbox& th= 15696d6979f157a5& si m 1= 15696d6979f157a5 1/ 2 8/ 17/2016 Pitkin County Mail- FW: Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus

Throughout its history the caucus has helped prevent unbridled development and has sought to maintain its rural and agrarian state. There have been differences but they have always been resolved amicably through reasonable and neighborly discussion.

A group of Snowmass Creek residents held a closed vote to which Snowmass Creek residents were invited. Some known to be against dividing were not invited nor permitted to enter. There was no discussion allowed to enter or to vote. A letter had previously been circulated with many untruths and exaggerations which were designed to insight division.

A previously scheduled meeting was held at the fire house on July 19th. It was attended by many residents but not one from the group wanting to divide. A very lengthy, reasoned and civilized discussion took place. It seems that an amicable agreement is possible but the failure of any of the Snowmass Creek ' dividers' to attend prevented further progress. Their reasons for wanting to divide have not been explained. The provisions in the proposed master plan revision have been changed to accommodate their objections.

Why are they so determined to block the effort to keep the caucus together? There are many who prefer unity. I think this question has to be answered before the County goes against the Home Rule Charter and allows two caucuses in the same area.

Thank you so much for your consideration, Helene

Helene Slansky 303 Little Elk Creek Ave. Snowmass CO. 81654 9709270495

https:// m ai I. google.com/ mail/ u/ 0/?ui= 2& ik= 7e03948784& vi ew= pt& search= inbox& th= 15696d6979f157a5& si m I= 15696d6979f157a5 2/ 2 8/15/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Fwd: Election

LhI ^!

OL N- t v Ellen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

Fwd: Election 11 messages

Patricia Batchelder< patz@sopris. net> Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4: 25 PM To: Ellen Sassano < ellen. sassano@pitkincounty. com>, Cindy Houben < Cindy.Houben@co. pitkin. co. us> Firstly, part of Mark Harvey' s take, as he was in attendance. A note was posted outside that ONLY Snowmass Creek residents could enter the Aspen Deaf Camp.

It was a little weird. No discussion. Quite a few confused people. Kathy DeWolfe watching over all the voting ( no privacy), a sheriff there for God knows what. Not sure we should have attended although we did pretty well all things considered: 56 to 38 for the secession."

And now Jan' s notice below. Can one person just do this? Were ALL property owners in Snowmass Creek notified in writing in advance to attend? In my option, if there was a valleys-wide vote, this would definitely not prevail.

Perhaps you are aware of a petition that Tim Mc Flynn is preparing for circulation and we still have our SnoCap Caucus public meeting for everyone to come and give more comments about the revised Plan.

Is this the way it actually works? Without stating any reason, or having any discussion, Jan have just spread whatever information she wanted and called for a vote.

I am truly sorry it has turned into this and know it will only create more work and hassle for you.

Thoughts and advice appreciated.

Patsy

Begin forwarded message:

From: Janice Martin < janmartin23@gmail. com> Subject: Fwd: Election Date: July 12, 2016 at 2: 07: 53 PM MDT To: undisclosed- recipients:;

Forwarded message------From: Janice Martin < janmartin23@gmail. com> Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8: 34 PM Subject: Election To:

The vote to separate and form a new Caucus prevailed 56 to 38.

What follows is a letter to the Board of County Commissioners advising them of the outcome. After recognition by the County of the new Caucus, an email will be sent asking for names of those interested in serving on the new Board. An election will be conducted by email voting and a new Board formed. That Board will then write the By- Laws and Master Plan for the new Caucus area.

Thanks to all who participated in the process. As stated before, we hope to be good neighbors and cooperate with the Capitol Creek Caucus.

Jan Martin

sim I... 1/ 5 https:// mai I. google.com/ mail/ u/0/? ui= 2& ik= 7e03948784& view= pt& cat= snowm ass% 20caucus% 20recognition% 20EI y& search= cat&th= 155e1373c777ddf1& 8/ 16/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Fwd: FW: Caucus separation vote

Ellen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

Fwd: FW: Caucus separation vote 1 message

Cindy Houben < cindy. houben@pitkincounty. com> Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:44 AM To: Ellen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

Forwarded message-- From: Dave Nixa < davenixa@gmail. com> Date: Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6: 50 AM Subject: FW: Caucus separation vote To: Cindy Houben < cindy. houben@pitkincounty. com> Cc: Joy Hartman < joysan@centurylink. net>

Hi Cindy,

So is there some sort of public notice required for this sort of thing?

Jan & Art Martin and Kathy DeWolfe came to our HOA board meeting to present their views on this, and seeking support from our residents, most of whom know nothing about this effort. It seems this is moving at light speed, especially considering that the Snowmass/ Capital Creek caucus is meeting on 7/ 19/ 16 to hear input from the entire community on the proposed new master plan, the alleged reason this separation is being proposed.

It seems like a small group of part-time and disgruntled residents are driving this effort without sufficient input from the permanent residents or a more public dialogue about the alternatives.

Your thoughts,

Thanks,

Dave Nixa

From: Kevin Michelson [ mailto: kevin@peakvisions. net] Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 9: 11 PM To: Kevin Michelson< [email protected]> Cc: Janice Martin Subject: FW: Caucus separation vote

156943e34bf9c07c& si m I= 156943e34bf9c07c 1/ 2 https:// m ai I. google.com/ m ail/ u/ 0/? ui= 2& i k= 7e03948784& view= pt& search= i nbox& th= 8/ 16/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Fwd: FW: Caucus separation vote

From: Janice Martin [ mailto:janmartin23@gmail. com] Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 8: 21 PM Subject: Caucus separation vote

Snowmass Creek Residents,

Therefore, we are advising you that a meeting will be held on July 11, 7 PM at Aspen Camp, 4862 Snowmass Creek Road, to conduct the formal vote. A simple majority of qualified electors in attendance is required. To date approximately 85% of the residents in the Valley from the Capitol Creek Rd./ Snowmass Creek Rd. intersection have been personally contacted regarding this initiative. The remaining 15% have been advised through email of the effort.

We look forward to your input regarding this matter, and hope you will be able to attend the meeting. Please feel free to contact us via phone or e- mail if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

The Snowmass Creek Caucus Committee

970) 923- 3774

https:// m ail. googl e. com/ mail/ u/ 0/?ui= 2& ik= 7e03948784& view= pt& search= i nbox& th= 156943e34bf9c07c& sim 1= 156943e34bf9c07c 2/ 2 8/ 15/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Fwd: SnoCap Caucus: MP update

py 1 I , 1‘. 4 # Cot' NI-4; Ellen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

Fwd: SnoCap Caucus: MP update 1 message

Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1: 41 PM McFlynn Tim < mcflynn@public- counsel. org> To: Ellen Sassano< ellen. sassano@pitkincounty. com>, Cindy Houben < Cindy.houben@pitkincounty. com> Cc: Congdon Chelsea < chels@capitolcreek. corn>

Thank you Ellen for your voicemail.

Here is that email I sent you both yesterday, along with the notice of the Special Meeting of the Board ( not just the MP committee) to focus solely on the PROCESS needed to develop broad consensus behind any recommended revisions, prior to a big Public Meeting with Caucus members on July 19. Chelsea yesterday and I today urged Rob to extend the invitation as Board prez, and so thank you for relaying to me in advance your best efforts to attend.

I fully understand that you both are swamped with a huge workload, plus all of the challenges of relocating and restructuring.

Thank you Tim

Begin forwarded message:

From: McFlynn Tim < [email protected]> Subject: SnoCap Caucus: MP update Date: June 15, 2016 at 3: 22: 43 PM MDT To: Cindy Houben < Cindy. houben@pitkincounty. corn>, Ellen Sassano< ellen. sassano@pitkincounty. com>

Hi Cindy, Hi Ellen I promised to keep you both in the loop. A quorum of the Caucus board and President Rob Sinclair has scheduled a Special Meeting on Tuesday, June 21, at 7 pm at the Fire Station. The schism to break in to two caucuses continues along Snowmass Creek, and the purpose of the Special Meeting is cairn the waters and begin to heal the rift by developing a transparent, inclusive and interactive process for revision. The notice of the meeting is attached and went to the Board yesterday. It will be up to Rob as chair but I imagine after 30 minutes of overview of the path forward, including your observations and reassurances. the Board will go in to executive session to discuss next steps.

We would be enormously grateful if you could join us at the beginning of the meeting to help reassure the Board and any members present that we are on the right track in trying to develop broad consensus for recommended revisions. Could you let me know if that might be possible?? We will ask Rob to extend you the invitation on behalf of the Board.

Thanks always and in advance,

Tim

Tim McFlynn, Executive Director Public Counsel of the Rockies 1280 Ute Avenue, Suite 10

ass% 20Caucus% 20Recognition& search= cat& th= 1555abb8708a5065& sim 1= 1555... 1/ 2 https:// m ail. google.com/ mail/ u/ O/ 7ui= 2& ik= 7e03948784& view= pt& cat= Snow 8/15/ 2016 Pitkin County Mail- Fwd: SnoCap Caucus: MP update

Aspen CO 81611 970) 925- 9003 mcflynn@public- counspl. org

I awake each day torn between a desire to save the world and to savour the world. It makes it hard to plan my day. e. b. white

2 attachments

PUBLIC COUNSEL PCOR_ logo_signature. png

a» f f r ociesra+ 17K 1;

AI Special Meeting NOTICE for June 21, 2016 draft# 3. docx 85K

https:// m ai I. googl e.com/ m ail/ u/ 0/? ui= 2& i k= 7e03948784& vi ew= pt& cat= Snowm ass% 20C aucus% 20Recogniti on& search= cat& th= 1555abb8708a5065& si m 1= 1555... 2/2 8/ 15/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Fwd: Snowmass- Capitol Creek Caucus

lkEllen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

Fwd: Snowmass- Capitol Creek Caucus 5 messages

Cindy Houben < cindy. houben@pitkincounty. com> Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 7: 48 AM To: Ellen Sassano < ellen. sassano@pitkincounty. com>, Phylis Mattice < phylis. [email protected]>

FYI so we are all on the same page. My thought is that the caucuses are on their own with these decisions and we should stay out of the discussion unless the ask for negotiation support or something like that. Thoughts?

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: " molly child" < molly.child@juno. com> Date: July 11, 2016 at 6:49: 43 AM CDT To: evets. child@juno, com, molly.child@juno. com, cindy. [email protected] Subject: Re: Snowmass-Capitol Creek Caucus

To all residents of the Snowmass and Capitol Creek valleys: I have attached a brief history of the Snowmass/ Capitol Creeks Caucus which I have been involved in since its beginning more than 40 years ago. I am writing this as a resident of Snowmass since 1961, and not as a member of the Board of County Commissioners. I am a strong advocate of the Pitkin County caucus system, and urge you to remember everything the Caucus has done over the past 40 years in considering what course of action to take now. I believe we are much stronger sticking together as one caucus representing a bigger geographic area, and representing all residents. We have faced many difficulties in the past, and have always emerged stronger. Please ponder the recollections of mine about our caucus beginnings and actions we have taken over the years. Respectfully submitted, — Steve Child

4 attachments

10-1 noname. html 1K

J Caucus accomplishments. docx 15K

Ai Caucus accomplishments.doc 20K

noname. html 1K 8/ 15/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Re: Letter From The Head Of The SnoCap Master Plan Committee

Ellen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

Re: Letter From The Head Of The SnoCap Master Plan Committee 5 messages

Martha Ferguson < ferguson@sopris. net> Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 7: 11 PM To: Patricia Batchelder< patz@sopris. net> Cc: Helene Slansky < helene@sopris. net>, Kevin Ward < kevinpward@post. harvard. edu>, John McBride Pabomcb@gmail. com>, McFlynn Tim < mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution. com>, Rick Heede com>, Robert heede@climatemitigation. com>, Seth Sachson < dogsaspen@sopns. net>, Mark Harvey < markharv@mac. Sinclair< rob@rgsarchitecture. com>, Gib Gardner< gib. gardner@alumni. amherst. edu>, Molly Child < molly.child@juno. com>, Katie Murch < Katie@aspencamp. org>, Gary Beck < garysbeck@hotmail. com>, Kevin Heinecken < kevin@heinecken. net>, Steve Child < evets. child@juno. com>, Michael Kinsley < michaeljkinsley@gmail. com>, Cindy. [email protected], Ellen. Sassano@pitkincounty. com

John,

I for one really like what we accomplished. We have had some tremendously good feedback from other residents and Pitkin County. And I have no apologies for our method, our process. For heavens sake, we have e- blasted multiple times and posted everything on our website for a year and a half. We are about to conduct a public town hall to hear up- close-and- personal voices from residents and have allowed an additional 7 weeks to make sure people are aware of this meeting and have put it on their calendars if they are interested to have their voice heard.

I do not want to withdraw the present plan but rather, conduct our meeting next week, hear public feedback, tweak it again if necessary and very soon, ratify it. There is absolutely no reason in the world to cave into the few disgruntled property owners in Snowmass Creek but rather, to keep calm and carry on.

If we have Michael Kinsley to act as moderator after Rob makes a formal introduction I believe it will be civil, open, friendly and certainly democratic procedure unlike the recent "vote" if you could call it that.

So please, other board members, chime in and let' s move forward.

Martha

p. s. the Community Picnic is a major" GO" and I will be calling on all of you to participate in some way. Many of you signed up already for tasks and I will send an email to remind you that this is not only an obligation but a FUN obligation.

On Jul 13, 2016, at 11: 30 AM, Patricia Batchelder< patz@sopris. net> wrote:

Dear SnoCap Caucus Board Members,

Clearly, there is a lot of anger and confusion about our revised Master Plan. Much of it stems from failure of thorough communication.

In past months, I have endorsed the idea of two caucuses due primarily to the anger from Snowmass Creek residents. However, I know a majority of the Caucus Board does not agree with me.

Hence, as head of the Master Plan committee, I would like to withdraw the present plan from consideration. I would like to propose that it be held in abeyance for 6 months until a new board is appointed. It then could be evaluated and possibly rewritten to satisfy both" creekers" without going through the consternation and brain damage of creating a second caucus.

Everyone might be happier and the County as well.

Sincerely,

John McBride

sim1= 155e6f... https:// mail. google.corn/ mail/ u/ 0/? ui= 2& ik= 7e03948784& view= pt& cat= Snowmass% 20Caucus% 20Recognition& search= cat&th= 155e6f5caa564dff& 1/ 3 8/ 15/ 2016 Pitkin County Mail- Re: Letter From The Head Of The SnoCap Master Plan Committee Head of the SnoCap Master Plan committee

helene@sopris. net< helene@sopris. net> Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9: 43 PM To: Martha Ferguson < ferguson@sopris. net> Cc: Patricia Batchelder< patz@sopris. net>, Kevin Ward < kevinpward@post. harvard. edu>, John McBride Pabomcb@gmail. com>, McFlynn Tim < mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution. com>, Rick Heede com>, Robert heede@climatemitigation. com>, Seth Sachson < dogsaspen@sopris. net>, Mark Harvey < markharv@mac. Sinclair< rob@rgsarchitecture. com>, Gib Gardner< gib. gardner@alumni. amherst. edu>, Molly Child < molly.child@juno. com>, Katie Murch < Katie@aspencamp. org>, Gary Beck < garysbeck@hotmail. com>, Kevin Heinecken < kevin@heinecken. net>, Steve Child < evets. child@juno. com>, Michael Kinsley < michaeljkinsley@gmail. com>, Cindy. [email protected], Ellen. Sassano@pitkincounty. com

Hi,

I am in complete agreement with Martha. I don't think any apologies are necessary. We worked hard for two years and produced a very fine master plan. We backed off on the TDR language which seemed to be the bone of contention. We listened to comments and revised the document to conform with those comments. I would hate to think that it was all in

vain.

I fail to understand what the problem is now. What is the hidden agenda behind this? I also wonder about the legality of the process of dividing. It certainly doesn't reflect the transparency we've been criticized for. I look forward to the meeting next Tuesday and to having a meaningful discussion. Thanks, Helene

Sent from my iPad Quoted text hidden]

Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7: 09 AM Gary Beck< garysbeck@hotmail. com> To: Martha Ferguson < ferguson@sopris. net>, Patsy < patz@sopris. net> Cc: Helene Slansky < helene@sopris. net>, Kevin Ward < kevinpward@post. harvard. edu>, John McBride pabomcb@gmail. com>, McFlynn Tim < mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution. com>, Rick Heede com>, Rob heede@climatemitigation. com>, Seth Sachson < dogsaspen@sopris. net>, Mark Harvey < markharv@mac.

Sinclair< rob@rgsarchitecture. com>, Gib Gardner< gib. gardner@alumni. amherst. edu>, Molly Child < molly.child@juno. com>, kevin@heinecken. net>, Steve Child < evets. child@juno. com>, Katie Murch < katie@aspencamp. org>, Kevin Heinecken < Michael Kinsley < michaeljkinsley@gmail. com>, " Cindy. Houben@pitkincounty. com" < cindy.houben@pitkincounty. com>, Ellen. [email protected]" < ellen. [email protected]>

John I think we need to move forward with our meeting on Tuesday and see what comes of that discussion. We might have just board members in attendance, with most people thinking that is the end of SnowCap. Or it might be well attended, I have no clue.

Gary Beck

Subject: Re: Letter From The Head Of The SnoCap Master Plan Committee From: ferguson@sopris. net Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19: 11: 29- 0600 CC: helene© sopris. net; kevinpward@post. harvard. edu; Pabomcb@gmail. com; mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution. com; heede@climatemitigation. com; dogsaspen@sopris. net; markharv@mac. com; rob@rgsarchitecture. com; gib. gardner@alumni. amherst. edu; [email protected]; Katie@aspencamp. org; garysbeck@hotmail. com; kevin@heinecken. net; evets. [email protected]; michaeljkinsley@gmail. com; Cindy. [email protected]; Ellen. Sassano@pitkincounty. com To: patz@sopris. net Quoted text hidden]

helene@sopris. net< helene@sopris. net> Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7: 14 AM To: Gary Beck < garysbeck@hotmail. com> Cc: Martha Ferguson < ferguson@sopris. net>, Patsy < patz@sopris. net>, Kevin Ward < kevinpward@post. harvard. edu>, John McBride < pabomcb@gmail. com>, McFlynn Tim < mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution. com>, Rick Heede

20Recognition&search= cat&th= 155e6f5caa564dff& si m 1= 155e6f... 223 https:// m ai I. google.com/ m ail/ u/ 0/? ui= 2& i k= 7e03948784&view= pt& cat= Snowmass% 20Caucus% 8/15/ 2016 Pitkin County Mail- Re: Letter From The Head Of The SnoCap Master Plan Committee

markhary@mac. com>, Rob heede@climatemitigation. com>, Seth Sachson < dogsaspen@sopris. net>, Mark Harvey < Sinclair< rob@rgsarchitecture. com>, Gib Gardner< gib. gardner@alumni. amherst. edu>, Molly Child < molly.child@juno. com>, Katie Murch < katie@aspencamp. org>, Kevin Heinecken < kevin@heinecken. net>, Steve Child < evets. child@juno. com>, Michael Kinsley < michaeljkinsley@gmail. com>, " Cindy. Houben@pitkincounty. com" < cindy.houben@pitkincounty. com>, Ellen. Sassano@pitkincounty. com" < ellen. sassano@pitkincounty. com>

I totally agree and plan to be there. Helene

Sent from my iPad Quoted text hidden]

Patricia Batchelder< patz@sopris. net> Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9: 30 AM To: Gary Beck < garysbeck@hotmail. com> Cc: Martha Ferguson < ferguson@sopris. net>, Helene Slansky < helene@sopris. net>, Kevin Ward kevinpward@post. harvard. edu>, John McBride < pabomcb@gmail. corn>, Tim McFlynn

mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution. com>, Rick Heede < heede@climatemitigation. com>, Seth Sachson rob@rgsarchitecture. com>, Gib dogsaspen@sopris. net>, Mark Harvey < markhary@mac. com>, " Robert G. Sinclair" < Gardner< gib. gardner@alumni. amherst. edu>, Molly Child < molly. child@juno. com>, Katie Murch < [email protected]>, Kevin Heinecken < kevin@heinecken. net>, Steve Child < evets. child@juno. com>, Michael Kinsley com>, Ellen Sassano michaeljkinsley@gmail. com>, " Cindy. Houben@pitkincounty. com" < cindy. houben@pitkincounty. ellen. [email protected]> A good turnout would be excellent, so I hope all are reminding friends and neighbors to be in attendance.

On Jul 14, 2016, at 7: 09 AM, Gary Beck < garysbeck@hotmail. com> wrote:

Quoted text hidden)

20Recognition&search= cat&th= 155e6fscaa564ctnsim1= 155e6f.. 3/3 https:// mail. google.com/ mail/ u/ 0/? ui= 2& ik= 7e03948784& view= pt& cat= Snowmass% 20Caucus% 8/ 15/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Re: SCC— SNEXIT

r Ix I ` r

COI. N• t Ellen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

Re: SCC - SNEXIT 1 message

Martha Ferguson < ferguson@sopris. net> Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11: 21 AM To: Robert Sinclair< rob@rgsarchitecture. corn>

Cc: "< patz@sopris. net>" < patz@sopris. net>, "< garysbeck@hotmail. com>" < garysbeck@hotmail. com>, " molly. child@juno. com>" < molly. child@juno. com>, "< chels@capitolcreek. com>" < chels@capitolcreek. com>, " gib. gardner@alumni. amherst. edu>" < gib. gardner@alumni. amherst. edu>, "< markhary@mac. com>" < markhary@mac. com>,

heede@climatemitigation. com>" < heede@climatemitigation. com>, "< mhildebrand@hilhouse. com>"

mhildebrand@hilhouse. com>, "< mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution. com>" < mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution. com>, " net>, "< kevinpward@mac. com>" Katie@aspencamp. org>" < Katie@aspencamp. org>, Seth Sachson < dogsaspen@sopris. kevinpward@mac. com>, Kevin Heinecken < Kevin@heinecken. net>, Helene Slansky < helene@sopris. net>, pabomcb@gmail. com" < pabomcb@gmail. com>, Ellen. [email protected], Cindy.Houben@pitkincounty. com My response to this is that a response needs to appear immediately. Last I heard the US, Colorado and Old Snowmass were still democracies, a system of government by the whole population and overseen by elected officials. Jan Martin & Co are appearing as de facto autocrats unwilling to talk, unwilling to accept outside or even inside interference yet using stealth tactics like moving forward in the dead of night to push through an agenda found inhospitable by many.

Btw, who will be counting the votes?

undiplomatic, anti- democratic movement— before In my opinion, voices need to rise up now to decry this very Monday' s vote. At the very least I would recommend that anyone not in favor of this hostility affecting all of Old Snowlmass to contact Pitkin County officials so that they are aware that many voices are aghast and not in favor not only of the movement but the underhanded and extremely questionable manner it is playing out. It is Pitkin County and its elected officials ( and not the SnowCap Caucus advisory board) that oversee all things legal and equitable based on codification in place. Since Cindy Houben and Ellen Sassano were at our last meeting and are aware of the goings on, they would most likely be interested in the latest developments and hearing true public comment; I am including them on this email as my own personal outreach as a resident and concerned member of our community.

Martha

On Jul 9, 2016, at 7: 58 AM, Rob Sinclair< rob@rgsarchitecture. com> wrote:

All

I have been informed/ reminded by Jan Martin that the event Monday at the Deaf Camp is a Vote for Snowmass Creek Residents only and no others will be allowed entry.

Additionally, it sounds like there will be no forum for discussion on the matter other than a ballot box.

Thanks

Rob

Sent from my iPad

155d0adddb5dab04& si m I= 155d... 1/ 1 https:// mai I. google.com/ m ail/ u/ 0/? ui= 2& i k= 7e03948784&vi ew= pt& cat= Snowm ass% 20Caucus% 20Recognition&search= cat&th= 8/15/2016 Pitkin County Mail- recent letter

Ellen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

recent letter 1 message

Patricia Batchelder< patz@sopris. net> Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9: 46 AM To: Ellen Sassano < ellen. sassano@pitkincounty. com>, Cindy Houben < Cindy. Houben@co. pitkin. co. us> I recently shared this letter from a SnoCap member with the board and they suggested I send it on to you, as we feel it is probably indicative of the overall sentiment in the two valleys. We feel it is important for you to see letters like this that show the truth and integrity of our effort.

Thanks.

Patsy

GarlandLasater.docx 100K

subset= all& as... 1/ 1 https:// mai I. googl e. com/ m ail/ u/ 0/? ui= 2& ik= 7e03948784& view= pt& as_ has= patsy% 20batchelder& as_ sizeoperator= s_ sl& as_ sizeunit= s_ sm b& as_ 8/ 15/ 2016 Pitkin County Mail- SnoCap Master Plan and Threatened Secession

Ellen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

SnoCap Master Plan and Threatened Secession 1 message

Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 7: 24 AM Andy Wiessner mhildebrand@hilhouse. com>, Katie To: ferguson@sopris. net, Mark Harvey < markhary@mac. com>, Mindy Hildebrand < Batchelder< patz@sopris. net>, Gib Gardner Murch < Katie@aspencamp. org>, Gary Beck < garysbeck@hotmail. com>, Patsy kevinpward@mac. corn>, Seth Sachson gib. gardner@alumni. amherst. edu>, molly. child@juno. com, ward kevin < dogsaspen@sopris. net>, Sue Helm < suehelm1@gmail. com>, Chelsea Congdon Brundige < chels@capitolcreek. com>, Robert Sinclair< rob@rgsarchitecture. com>, Rick Heede < heede@climatemitigation. com>, Tim McFlynn

mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution. corn>, John Mcbride < jpmcb@rof. net>, Kevin Heinecken < Kevin@heinecken. net>,

Helene < helene@sopris. net>, evets. child@juno. com, EIIen. [email protected], Cindy. Houben@pitkincounty. com, Michael Kinsley < michaeljkinsley@gmail. com>, David Nixa < davenixa@gmail. com>, janmartin23@gmail. com

Dear Snocap Caucus Members and Valley Residents,

What gives? We are all good friends and neighbors here... and people of good will. We should be talking about the Master Plan face to face, in a calm, deliberate fashion, instead of scheduling meetings to which half of our community is reportedly not invited. It simply astounds me that anyone in our valley would want to exclude other friends and neighbors. This is NOT the U. S. Congress, for goodness sake!

Martha Ferguson is right on. Two people from our valley cannot meet for an hour and bind the rest of us to agree with what they decide. The Snocap Caucus is a legally authorized County entity, and an IRS licensed 501©( 3) nonprofit charitable organization. It strikes me as a total waste of time, duplicative and a real shame, to attempt to split up this good, and

tremendous work for all of us.... and long- standing, nonprofit organization that has done absolutely yeoman work on protecting the gem of our valley— Snowmass Creek.

I have followed this process mostly through the eyes of my wife, Patsy. It seems like the only serious bone of contention in the proposed Master Plan revision surrounds the future use of TDRs... and language that "discourages" using TDRs in the Caucus area. The TDR program is an excellent program that has greatly benefitted Pitkin County. Its purpose is to channel future growth out of more remote backcountry (and valuable wildlife habitat) areas into

lower elevation lands where more intensive development already exists . A good example of its benefits occurred when Patsy and I first moved to the valley 10 years ago. Namely, 3 parcels near the Harvey Ranch high up on Shield- o Mesa were sterilized from development

in exchange for TDRs... and possible future development was avoided.

search= cat& th= 155da2262a014c 1 d& s i m 1= 155d... 1/ 2 https:// m ai I. googl e. com/ m ai I/ u/ 0/?ui= 2& i k= 7e03948784& v i ew= pt& cat= Snowmass/ 0 20C aucus% 20R ecogni ti on& 8/ 15/2016 Pitkin County Mail- SnoCap Master Plan and Threatened Secession

I think TDRs should be looked at on a case by case basis... and that it is unwise to adopt a blanket policy "discouraging their use in the entire huge area that our two valleys encompass. TDR use in our valley has been very infrequent over the past 20 years, and I think the TDR issue is a classic " solution looking for a problem" that does not exist. I would suggest striking the reference to TRDs in the Master Plan revision, and moving forward with what is otherwise an excellent draft plan.

What upsets me most of all, however, is how this whole issue has gotten way out of hand... and how neighbors are proposing to hold meetings where other neighbors are excluded. As I said at the outset, we are people of good will in this valley, and we should be able to talk to each other and iron any disagreements out without breaking up a really good organization and 501©( 3) charity.

Best to all,

Andy Wiessner

970- 927- 6521

si m ass% 20C aucus% 20R ecogniti on&search= cat& th= 155da2762a014c 1 d& 1= 155d... 2/2 https:// mail. googl e. com/ mail/ u/ 0/? ui= 2& i k= 7e03948784& vi ew= pt& cat= Snow m 8/15/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus Meeting

exp " ' t Ellen Sassano < ellen. sassano@pitkincounty. com>

Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus Meeting 4 messages

Glenn Horn < ghorn@rof. net> Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8: 29 AM To: Cindy Houben< cindy.houben@pitkincounty. com>, Ellen Sassano< ellen. [email protected]> Cc: Michael Kraemer< michael. kraemer@pitkincounty. com>, Suzanne Wolff< [email protected]>, tami. [email protected]

Cindy & Ellen:

I attended the Caucus meeting last night as a representative of the Records family. The Records family owns three adjacent parcels in Snowmass Creek just upvalley of the Deaf Camp below Hidden Meadows. I assisted the Records family in developing their house in 1992. They recently acquired the third lot and are planning to redevelop it.

It was a long and interesting Caucus meeting last night which was attended by about 60 or 70 people. It was a standing room only crowd at the firehouse.

It was an impressive, neighborly and thoughtful crowd. The vast majority of those attending wanted to keep the Caucus together and were brainstorming changes to the proposed Master Plan to appease Snowmass Creek property owners who had voted to split the Caucus. Those in attendance were very disappointed there had been a vote prior to this Caucus meeting. The Caucus had Michael Kinsley, a professional Moderator, to moderate the discussion which was a very good idea.

The outcome was as follows:

1. Prepare a letter to all property owners in the proposed Snowmass Caucus area explaining there had been a serious lack of communication between the existing Caucus Board of Directors and property owners in Snowmass Creek. Apparently many letters from the Snowmass Creek objectors never were received or read by the Board members. There was some glitch with the scanned letters. The letter will be a" conciliatory letter." The letter will explain that the two Valleys share more common goals than differences and the TDR issue alone should not split the Caucus.

2. A moratorium on the entire Master Plan and planning effort will be imposed until trust can be re- built between the two factions in the Caucus.

3. The Caucus will invite all Snowmass Creek rebels to a meeting and hire a moderator to lead a discussion in an effort to re- build trust and relationships between neighbors in both Valleys. Mike Kinsley will not be

cat&th= 15608b64b1 ed375b& sim1= 1560... 1/ 3 https.// mail. google.com/ mail/ u/OP?ui= 2& ik=7e03948784& view= pt& cat= Snowmass% 20Caucus%20Recognition&search= 8/15/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus Meeting the moderator for the next discussion due to his ties to the Caucus and past experience as a BOCC member.

4. The Caucus encouraged attendees at the meeting to call Snowmass Valley property owners who did not attend the meeting a explain what occurred at the Caucus meeting. The key message is to be conciliatory to those property owners who want to split the Caucus.

5. It was clear that when the Master Plan process starts again, the Plan will state TDRs will be permitted on appropriate sites in the Caucus area up to 8, 250 square feet of floor area. The precise language will be worked out later. The short term goal is to re-build trust and communication in the Caucus. Resolution to the TDR issue will occur after trust is re- built.

6. The 2003 Master Plan is still the adopted Plan for the Caucus and any land use applications will be reviewed based upon the adopted Plan.

I think it would be a shame if the Caucus split up and hope the effort to stop the secession is successful. The two Valleys share common goals and they can resolve differences over TDRs if all the neighbors work together. People in attendance realized that the residents of the two Valleys will have far more influence if they stay together rather than splitting up.

Please call or email with any questions or comments.

Glenn

Davis Horn Incorporated

Glenn Horn AICP

970-925-6587

Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9: 37 AM Cindy Houben < cindy. [email protected]> To: Glenn Horn< ghom@rof. net> Suzanne Cc: Ellen Sassano< ellen. sassano@pitkincounty. com>, Michael Kraemer< michael. kraemer@pitkincounty. com>, Wolff< suzanne. wolff@pitkincounty. com>, " tami. kochen@pitkincounty. com" < tami. [email protected]>

Thank you Glenn- this is very helpful!

Sent from my iPhone Quoted text hidden]

Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9: 41 AM Ellen Sassano < ellen. sassano@pitkincounty. com> To: Glenn Horn< ghom@rof. net>

2/ 3 ass°/020C aucus%a20Recognition& search= cat&th= 15608b64b1 ed375b&sim 1= 1560... https:// m ail. google.com/ mail/ u/ Or?ui= 2& ik= 7e03948784& view= pt& cat= Snawm 8/ 15/ 2016 Pitkin County Mail- Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus Meeting

com>, Suzanne Cc: Cindy Houben < cindy. houben@pitkincounty. com>, Michael Kraemer< michael. kraemer@pitkincounty. Wolff < suzanne. wolff@pitkincounty. com>, Tami Kochen < tami. [email protected]> Thanks for the thorough reporting Glenn! I' ll be curious to hear the response from those pursuing the split... Ellen

Quoted text hidden]

Ellen Sassano Senior Long Range Planner Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado, 81612 970- 920-5098

ellen. [email protected]

Ellen Sassano < ellen. sassano@pitkincounty. com> Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2: 23 PM To: Jan Patterson < jan. patterson@pitkincounty. com>

FYI. For better or for worse, I' m guessing the proposal to split the Caucus into two separate caucuses representing the respective drainages will prevail - But we' ll see!

Ellen

Quoted text hidden]

Ellen Sassano Senior Long Range Planner Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 5. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado, 81612 970- 920-5098

ellen. [email protected]

search= cat&th= 15608b64b1 ed375b& si m 1= 1560... 3/3 https:// m ail. google. com/ mail/ u/ 0/? ui= 2& ik= 7e03948784& vi ew= pt& cat= Snowm ass% 20Caucus% 20Recognition& 8/ 15/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Transparency

Ellen Sassano < ellen. [email protected]>

Transparency 1 message

Martha Ferguson < ferguson@sopris. net> Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11: 35 AM To: janmartin23@gmail. com Cc: Mark Harvey < markhary@mac. com>, Mindy Hildebrand < mhildebrand@hilhouse. com>, Katie Murch patz@sopris. net>, Gib Gardner Katie@aspencamp. org>, Gary Beck < garysbeck@hotmail. com>, Patsy Batchelder< child@juno. ward kevin gib. gardner@alumni. amherst. edu>, " molly. child@juno. com" < molly. com>, kevinpward@mac. com>, Seth Sachson < dogsaspen@sopris. net>, Sue Helm < suehelm1@gmail. com>, Chelsea Congdon

Brundige < chels@capitolcreek. com>, Robert Sinclair< rob@rgsarchitecture. com>, Rick Heede heede@climatemitigation. com>, Tim McFlynn < mcflynn@aspendisputeresolution. com>, John Mcbride , Kevin Heinecken < Kevin@heinecken. net>, Helene< helene@sopris. net>, evets. child@juno. com, com>, David Ellen. Sassano@pitkincounty. com, Cindy. Houben@pitkincounty. com, Michael Kinsley < michaeljkinsley@gmail. Nixa < davenixa@gmail. com>

I met with John McBride, the chairperson of the Master Plan committee. After our hour long meeting we both concluded separation was the best alternative. " Please explain to all of us how it is you, a former SnowCap Board member well versed in the ByLaws of the Caucus, thought you could swing a deal in a one hour conversation with one SnowCap Board member and call it a mandate to change the course and split apart the community of Old Snowmass and the lives of every resident who lives here?

Please explain clearly and concisely your lack of any kind of due process and time allowance to inform the entire community/ public of your plan? Are you willing to be truly open, transparent and contact every resident with your ideas, plan for public informational meetings, to be open for discussion and even disapproval as this Caucus has done? Why are you rushing for a vote before employing all of these and more very required democratic guarantees in a free society? Answer to us clearly why you never even attempted to schedule a formal presentation at a regular Board meeting but instead began a disruptive, misrepresentative and quiet campaign to derail the Caucus that continues to work tirelessly to protect the values that have been represented in the Vision Statement of the Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus for 30- some years?

Being a former Board member you would know that talking to a few current Board members does not suffice for any type of approval or disapproval of any issue let alone a major change to a Caucus or its Master Plan. Thank you for addressing these questions clearly, directly and without added hyperbole and please copy everyone in this email.

Martha Ferguson Snowmass Capitol Creek Board Member

search= cat&th= 155d5e1 e52684780& si m 1= 155d... 1/ 1 https:// m ai I. googl e. com/ m ail/ u/ 0/? ui= 2& ik= 7e03948784& view= pt& cat= Snowm ass% 20Caucus% 20Recognition& 9/7/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Fwd: Proposed Snowmass Creek Caucus

1) it MCI Jane Achey< jane. [email protected]>

Fwd: Proposed Snowmass Creek Caucus 1 message

From: Art Martin < artmartin7@gmail. com> Date: September 6, 2016 at 2: 27: 36 PM MDT To: Rachelrichards@comcast. net, Patti Clapper< patti. [email protected]>, George. Newman@pitkincounty. corn, Michael Owsley < michaelowsley@gmail. com> Cc: John. Ely@pitkincounty. com Subject: Proposed Snowmass Creek Caucus

With regard to the proposed new Snowmass Creek Caucus, I have read letters in the Aspen paper and have seen emails that make false or misleading claims about the proposed split as part of a campaign in opposition. Frankly, there are too many to address them all but here are some:

1. The reason for the split is unhappiness over the proposed master plan, use of TDR's, etc.

This is only partly true. The fundamental reason for the desire to split is that residents in the Snowmass Creek Valley have not been and are not well represented by the current caucus. Indeed, it is true that the master plan process the current caucus conducted was worse than bad. But it was the fact that the or rejected the board of the caucus. It wasn' t just residents' concerns were blithely ignored and/ by existing letters that were ignored; residents who showed up at a board meeting to discuss their concerns were given a few minutes and then the matter was tabled. Later attempts at compromise were rejected or ignored. Only when the possibility of a new caucus being formed became a reality did the board of the current caucus begin to make overtures to those who had been ignored. People took those belated overtures for what they were worth. Even now, the opponents will not respect the vote that was taken resulting in a decisive majority to form a new caucus.

2. Snowmass Creek Caucus proponents were offered the opportunity for open, mediated discussions of their issues. They have flatly refused, preferring to go it alone. This just doesn' t make rational sense and appears to be rooted in a perceived insult over the lack of responsiveness by the Snowmass-Capitol Creek Caucus. The proponents are the entire majority who voted to form our own caucus plus many more that were not able to be present to vote. How would such mediation represent them? Is some person or undercuts Besides this, the refusal is rooted small group supposed to cut a deal that their vote? not in a perceived insult but in the lack of trust based on how the current board ignored Snowmass Creek Valley residents for seven months until the threat of a new caucus became a reality. The concern is that the opponents will now promise anything to prevent a split but such promises will be insincere based on past behavior and very difficult to monitor and enforce. The refusal is both rational and logical.

3. The vote to split, on July 11, was with only one week' s advance notice (via email) to some residents. Only those who live in Lazy 0 Ranch ( not on Snowmass Creek Road) and off of Snowmass Creek Road past the T with Capitol Creek Road to the end were allowed to vote, excluding Gateway, Capitol Creek and East Sopris.

157056777d65e3ae& sim1= 157056777d65e3ae 1/ 2 https:// mail. google.com/ mail/ u/0/? ui= 2& i k= 1 ecde246a9& view= pt& search= inbox& th= 9/7/2016 Pitkin County Mail- Fwd: Proposed Snowmass Creek Caucus There were five notices sent out about the vote, four by email and one by the U. S. Postal Service. The purpose of the notice, as required law, was only to state the date, time, location and purpose of the meeting or vote. A high percentage of Snowmass Creek Valley residents turned out to vote demonstrating the adequacy of the notice. There was plenty of discussion about the proposal before the notice was sent, just not in the format preferred by the opponents. Lazy 0 residents did not vote because they were not in the initial map of the proposed new caucus. ( After the vote, Lazy 0 opted to join the new caucus and they could do so because they are contiguous.) Gateway, Capitol Creek and East Sopris residents were not eligible to vote since they were not in the map area of the proposed new caucus.

4. Caretakers and renters could not vote.

Flat out false. Many caretakers and renters did, indeed vote. To be eligible to vote you had to be an elector( eligible to vote) or a non- resident property owner. Voters were checked from county records to be sure they were eligible. The votes were counted by Fr. Joseph of St. Benedict' s Monastery.

5. The existing caucus has done so much good over the years. Why throw all that away?

Nothing accomplished in the past will be thrown away or lost. More importantly, the proposed new caucus is eager and willing to work constructively with the existing caucus on matters of joint interest as an equal partner in the decisions.

There are other false or misleading statements that have been made which may obscure the truth but the pertinent facts are these:

A majority of the residents of the Snowmass Creek Valley, a large geographic area with significant differences from the Capitol Creek Valley, voted to form a new caucus because they have not been and are not well represented by the current caucus.

The spirit and letter of the law to form a new caucus were met and the people are entitled to due process and to have their vote respected.

Respectfully,

Art Martin

https:// m ail. google.com/ mail/ u/ 0/? ui= 2& i k= 1 ecde246a9& view= pt& search= inbox& th= 157056777d65e3ae& si m I= 157056777d65e3ae 2/2 HARVEY RANCH 7651 SNOWMASS CREEK ROAD SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654

September 2, 2016

Board of County Commissioners 530 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611

Dear BOCC:

successes.

The cornerstone of my argument emanates from article 4.5 of the home rule charter, which reads: There shall be only one ( I) recognized caucus in each geographic area. Each caucus shall provide proposed and definite boundariesfor their caucus to the Board. "

Presently there is one caucus in the Snowmass Capitol Creek area that is very clearly defined and of article 4. which reads: " Recognized caucus areas to the unmistakably meets the other half 5, greatest extent possible shall reflect geographically contiguous areas with social, economic, cultural, and environmental communities of interest."

So what are the criteria for declaring that there is already one caucus in the geographic area under contention and therefore creating another caucus violates the articles of the home rule charter? With due respect to the other eight caucuses in Pitkin County, I would argue that Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus has been one of the most active and steadily attended caucuses of the system. It is certainly the oldest and it has never gone dormant for a moment. The Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus has been very active in both valleys ranging from warding off 2 logging operations in Capitol Creek to working diligently on healthy stream flows in Snowmass Creek.

It seems arbitrary to let article 4. 1. 1 be your guide in this quasi-judicial setting and not article 4. 5.

Even if you were to be guided by article 4. 1. 1, for this issue, I would maintain that the conditions states, " An required in the home rule charter have not been met. Namely, the clause that information campaign shall be conducted to ensure that all qualified electors and non- resident real property owners in the proposed caucus area know ofthe date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting. "

In my opinion, these conditions were simply not met. Not even close. To begin, the notice for the July 11th vote over whether or not to establish a new caucus was not sent until July 4. Think about that. That gave residents and property owners one week' s notice. In what other venue is one week' s notice sufficient time to announce a vote of import. When you consider the busy lifestyles of Pitkin County residents, especially in the summer, shouldn' t voters have at least two months notice? One month? One week just does not meet the criteria set forth in article 4. 1. 1.

And a notice of a vote should be circulated broadly through various mediums. As a long-time Snowmass Creek property owner, I did not receive any notice until a friend forwarded me his notice. Our ranch managers had no notice either and they have been residents of the proposed new caucus for thirteen years. There are wide numbers of people who should have, but did not

receive notice.

The poor information campaign and lack of notice is evidenced by the small number of people estimate close people live in the who actually voted. From GIS mapping we that to 500 newly 3

proposed caucus area. Of that number, only 94 people, or 19%, voted. Only 56 people or 11% voted in favor of a new caucus. That is a very small percentage of residents breaking apart a fine organization with over four decades of history.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Harvey