Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.07132005PITI(IN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Plaza One Conference Room WEDNESDAY~ JULY 13~ 2005 (Jack Hatfield not Present) 2:00 ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA PROCLAMATIONS, PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS CONSENT ACTIONS 1. Minutes of June 22 Regular Meeting and June 28 Work Session CONSENT ACTIONS- 1st Readings~ Set for Public Hearing on 7/27: 2. Resolution Approving Expenditure of Funds Generated Through Renewable Energy Mitigation Program, Tony Fusaro 3. Adoption of Resolution to Affirm Certain Aircraft Operating Restrictions at Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, Jim Elwood, Dave Ulane 4. Ordinance Appealing and Re-enacting Title 10 of the Pitkin County Code, Jim Elwood, Dave Ulane 5. Resolution Providing Supplemental Appropriations to the 2005 Budget for Carryover Projects and Other 2005 Projects Approved to Date, Debe Nelson 6. Resolution Providing Supplemental Appropriations to the 2005 Budget from Additional Revenues Collected in 2004, Debe Nelson CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING 7. Resolution Adopting Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, Ellen Anderson LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Bennett Special Review (com'd from 1/12/05) (cont'd to 7/27/05) (PN 9/11/04), S. Wolff LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Tract 36 Road Name Change (PN 6/12/05), E. Louthis 3. Flying Dog West Ranch Special Review Extension (PN 6/12/05), S. Wolff 4. COMPASS & Aspen Community School Rezoning, PUB Master Plan Amendment, Special Review, GM Exemption, 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission and Caretaker Dwelling Units (PN 6/12/05), S. Wolff 5. Shapiro Appeal of Barnett 1041 Hazard Review (PN 6/12/05), L. Clarke EXECUTIVE SESSION BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURN (A dinner break is scheduled from 6:00 to 6:45 pm.) APPROVED JULY 27, 2005 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 2005 NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted, refer to the BOCC PACKET FOR JULY 13, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Ireland called the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 2:00 PM. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mick Ireland, Michael Owsley and Dorothea Farris COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Patti Clapper due to attendance at hearings in Washington D.C. on behalf of the county. Commissioner Hatfield due to a scheduled vacation. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA: None PROCLAMATIONS: None PUBLIC COMMENT: Ray Poigman appeared before the board to discuss an issue with certain property associated with the Crystal Island Ranch being sold to Sustainable Settings. Mr. Poigman was advised that a response, in writing, would be sent to him shortly. If he has any questions after he received the letter then he could request work session time for discussion purposes. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commissioners gave comments on current local and state issues and sports events. CONSENT ACTIONS: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 22 AND WORK SESSION MEETING OF JUNE 28, 2005 - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: JEANETTE JONES, CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 2005 Commissioner Farris moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed with three yea votes. Commissioners Clapper and Hatfield not present. CONSENT ACTIONS - FIRST READINGS SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 27, 2005: FIRST READING - RESOLUTION APPROVING EXPENDITURES OF FUNDS GENERATED THROUGH THE RENEWABLE ENERGY MITIGATION PROGRAM - MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND SET FOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 27, 2005 RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM CERTAIN AIRCRAFT OPERATING RESTRICTIONS AT ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: JIM ELWOOD, AIRPORT DIRECTOR FIRST READING - ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING TITLE 10 (AIRPORT REGULATIONS) OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE - MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND SET FOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 27, 2005 FIRST READING - RESOLUTION PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE 2005 BUDGET FOR CARRYOVER PROJECTS AND OTHER 2005 PROJECTS APPROVED TO DATE - MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND SET FOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 27, 2005 - STAFF PERSON: DEBE NELSON, FINANCE DIRECTOR FIRST READING - RESOLUTION PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE 2005 BUDGET FROM ADDITIONAL REVENUES COLLECTED IN 2004 - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: DEBE NELSON, FINANCE DIRECTOR Commissioner Farris moved approval of the items on this portion of the agenda. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS - SECOND READINGS SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION ADOPTING PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PERSON: ELLEN ANDERSON, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 2005 Commissioner Farris moved approval of the Resolution. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed with three yea votes. Commissioners Clapper and Hatfield not present. LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS: BENNETT SPECIAL REVIEW - CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 12, 2005, TO BE CONTINUED TO JULY 27, 2005 - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JULY 27, 2005 - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Vice-Chairperson Mick Ireland opened the public hearing on this application and entertained a motion to continue the matter to July 27, 2005 Commissioner Farris moved to continue the Bennett application to July 27, 2005. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed with three yea votes. Commissioners Clapper and Hatfield not present. LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ROAD NAME CHANGE OF TRACT 36 TO ROAD TO BEAR RIDGE ROAD - MOTION TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN - STAFF PLANNER: EZRA LOUTHIS Applicant's Representative: Paul Spencer Applicant's Request: A change in the name of Tract 3(5 Road to Bear Ridge Road Applicants: Homeowners Accessed off of Tract 3(5 Road Commissioner Ireland opened the public hearing on this application. Commissioner Owsley moved approval of the Resolution as written. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed with three yea votes. Commissioners Clapper and Haffield not present. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FLYING DOG RANCH SPECIAL REVIEW USE PERMIT EXTENSION - MOTION TO APPROVE - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Applicant: Richard and Lydia Mclntyre; flying Dog West Ranch, Inc. Applicant's Request: A ten-year renewal of the Special Review Use Permit for a reception hall and meeting facility, two guest ranch cabins and an arts and crafts studio. The applicant proposes to continue to operate pursuant to the previously established limitations. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 2005 Vice-Chairperson Ireland opened the public hearing on this application. Dorothea disclosed that she is an adjacent property owner. The applicants said they would have not problem with Commissioner Farris participating in this matter. Suzanne Wolff gave a presentation on this application as summarized in her memorandum to the board contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Commissioner Farris noted that the application has the unanimous support of the Crystal River Valley Caucus. Commissioner Farris moved approval of the Resolution as written. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed with three yea votes. Commissioners Clapper and Hatfield not present. Vice-Chairperson Ireland closed the public hearing on this application, FIRST READING - ORDINANCE REZONING A PORTION OF THE COMPASS PROPERTY FROM PUBLIC (PUB) TO RS-20/PUD - MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND SET FOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 10, 2005 - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF FIRST READING - RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL TO COMPASS FOR LIFELONG LEARNING FOR THE COMPASS AND ASPEN COMMUNITY SCHOOL PUB (PUBLIC) MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS; AND SPECIAL REVIEW, 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION AND GMQS EXEMPTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF Applicant: Richard and Lydia Mclntyre; Flying Dog West Ranch, Inc. Applicant's Request: Amendment to the 1995 Master Plan to allow an expansion of the educational facilities on the COMPASS property, which includes the following: · Rebuild the Aspen Community School Building · Refurbish the gymnasium · Enlarge the Early Childhood Center · Allow up to 2,500 square feet for future unspecified accessory educational space Suzanne Wolff gave a presentation on this application as summarized in her memorandum to the Board contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 2005 Commissioner Ireland questioned if the commitments from the previous approval had been met by the applicant? Ms. Wolff responded that none of the previous commitments had been made. Commissioner Ireland said that a plan needs to be in place for fulfillment of the previous promises and a benefit in hand or at least collectable before he can approve this application, regardless of the outcome of today's approval. Jim Curtis stated that they are not expecting a vote on this matter tonight. He explained that the applicants need time to work with the neighborhood on the issue of the road and the driveway. He then proceeded to give an overview of their operation as outlined in their application contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting. Mr. Curtis said relative to Mick's issue they acknowledge the commitments from 1995. He explained that the goal of the proposal is to achieve financial stability for the K-8 Woody Creek School, which was founded in 1970. He explained that the school is part of the Aspen School District and although it receives money from the state, there is an operating shortfall of about $300,000 a year. He explained that the shortfall is primarily because state funding is allocated on a per student basis and the school has a Iow student/teacher ratio. The shortfall has historically been made up by fundraising, grants and grant from George Stranahan, who was one of the school's founders who gifted the school 200 acres in 1980. He said the school wants to become financially independent of Mr. Stranahan and the subdivision proposal would help achieve that independence in establishing an endowment that would likely generate about $150,000 a year. He explained that the rest of the shortfall would continue to come from fundraising and grants. Commissioner Ireland said he would only approve the project if its developers could somehow guarantee these improvements get carried out. He said he thinks the community should get what it was promised, regardless of the outcome of today's application. He said he could not vote for this without that commitment being made. He then moved to continue the application until August 10, 2005 pending the applicant providing adequate security, to the satisfaction of the county attorney for prior commitments and opportunity for them to work out the road and driveway issue. Chelsea Congnon, President of Compass, thanked the board for hearing their application. She assured the commissioners that the officers are taking the past commitments very seriously and they thought that one way to more forward in fulfilling those commitments, was by way of this application. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 2005 Commissioner Farris seconded the motion made by Commissioner Ireland. Motion passed with three yea votes. Commissioners Clapper and Hatfield not present. RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL BY NANCY AND ANDREW SHAPIRO OF A HEARING OFFICER DETERMINATION RELATED TO THE BARNETT FAMILY TRUST, LOT 10, ASPEN OAKS SUBDIVISION - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO AUGUST 10, 2005 - STAFF PLANNER: LANCE CLARKE, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR Applicant: Nancy and Andrew Shapiro Applicant's Request: Appeal of Hearing Officer's Determination of the Barnett Subdivision John Lassalette, Attorney for the appellants, Nancy and Andrew Shapiro, said he has a video tape, which he would like to introduce into the record and requested that he be able to show it and enter it into the record for this appeal. Ted Gardenswartz, representing the Barnetts, argued that the appeal should be an appeal on the record and the record is what was presented to the hearing officer when he made his decision that is being appealed. He said he thinks it is inappropriate to introduce new evidence at this juncture. A copy of the complete record associated with this development application is attached to the end of the BOCC packet for this meeting, under additional exhibits. John Ely, County Attorney, said the standards for an appeal are less than fully described in the code. He said the board has dealt with the dilemma in the past and has gone a couple of different directions. The board has in the past, expanded the record to allow the parties to introduce new information and the board in the past, depending upon the item in front of it on an appeal, have limited it to the record. He said he thinks that that Board needs to make that decision up front. It was the consensus of commission members that Mr. Lassalette could proceed with a video presentation showing the topography of the subject property, the adjoining properties and the common area. At the close of the video presentation he has argued that above Aspen Oak Drive the property is pristine and undisturbed and below it is extensive existing disturbance. Above the road will require driveway cuts and fills on 15-30 degree slopes - below has an existing driveway without a cut or fill on its entire length. Additionally, the existing driveway, since it serves another property, will not go away. So the area would end up with two roads rather then one. Another aspect is that essentially it would be going from building in an existing moderate fire hazard and moving to a severe fire hazard in violation of the code. Instead of clustering to benefit there would be extensive habitat destroyed in violation of the code. He said the lot BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 2005 slope of the entire area, above the road, is between 15 and 45%. Below the road the slope is between 0 and 15%. Mr. Gardenswartz said the only objection to the proposed building envelope has been voiced by the Shapiros that there are no other objections by any other neighbors or by anyone else in the subdivision, and the county has not appealed the decision by James R. True the hearing officer. He said with respect to the building envelope being moved to the common area, according to the covenants, there is to be no development in the common area. And in fact, the Shapiros were involved in a lawsuit with the Barnetts in which the Barnetts were sued for expanding their septic location in the common area and the Shapiros signed off on an agreement acknowledging that there could be no development and here they are saying you should develop in the common area. He said the original application for this property shows the proposed development envelope avoids slopes exceeding 30%, wildlife issues are addressed, wildfire issues are addressed and there are letters and expert reports in the application. Additionally, Jim True conducted a site visit with members of the staff, the Shapiros, representatives of the Barnetts and with other neighbors. After the site visit, the hearing was held by Mr. True and he granted 1041 Hazard and Ridgeline review approval. He sited the administrative procedure act, which says a party who desires to reverse or modify a decision of a hearing officer shall file certain portions of the record, shall do certain things, and then have the burden of showing why the decision of the hearing officer is not supported, which is a requirement that the agency (such as the BOCC) to discover a clear error by the hearing officer. He said Mr. True's findings were based upon all the evidence, which was presented over a period of time. With respect to moving the building envelope into the common area, he said that parcel, since 1972, was deemed to be common area, when the subdivision was created and everybody has the right to use that property. When Mr. True made his determination he didn't say there couldn't be development down there because of the common area, but rather his findings were that the proposed development area is in a severe hazard wildfire/wildlife area, but the severe hazard of wildlife and wildfire can be mitigated. He said it is important to note that severe hazard/wildfire exists on the lower portion as well and the fire marshal says that the parcel has easy access. With respect to the wildlife hazard, he said Mr. True's finding said the approved site was preferable from a wildlife perspective because there are houses on both sides of the Barnetts and disturbance by other houses. He referred to a referral comment by the Division of Wildlife, which says placement of the new home on the mountain side shrub hillside above the existing residence should not cause significant additional impacts to wildlife. With respect to the slope issue, the application proposes to avoid slopes exceeding 30 percent so there aren't any slope issues. With respect to the scenic issues, he said the existing homes on both sides are oriented off toward the lower area of the meadow. So building up above would preserve those scenic views and vistas. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 2005 Mr. Lassalette explained that there was a comment that the Shapiros were actively pursuing litigation against Ms. Barnett and that is simply not true, but rather, they were brought in as third-party defendants. They were dragged in by six people who did want to correct the fact that there was septic, which had been built, without approval, from any of the homeowners within the subdivision and it was on the common area. With regard to the homeowners association, it did not sue anybody, but rather, six individual people who were in the subdivision presented that lawsuit. With respect to the wildlife issue, he said if you read the entire letter, it shows that each habitat has its own merits. With regard to the wildfire issue that area can be mitigated, but the code says you are not suppose to go jumping into severe when you have moderate available. He said the other aspect to this is that in the site visits, Mr. True never went below the road, he never looked below the road, and he never did any site review of the 3.3 acres below the road. The only thing he looked at was the 1.7 acres above the road. Additionally, he referred to the applicant's copy of a site plan, which reflects that they are avoiding 30% slopes. He indicated where that would leave the building envelope and he said he does not think they are proposing to build on either site. Francis Krizmanich, land use planner for the Barnetts, proceeded to give an overview of their site plan and the reasons for placing the home site in it's approved location. With respect to wildfire, he said their fire expert, Art Hoaglund, looked at both sides of the road and determined that they were about the same. He said he thinks they met all of the code criteria in fact, when all the issues are put together, Jim True agreed with them that they had the best house site. Nancy Shapiro voiced her objection to the home being located on the approved lot. A copy of her written comments associated with this matter is attached to he end of the packet for this meeting, under additional exhibits. Ms. Shapiro said she attended the site visit. She said Mr. True was only there for about one hour, and when she asked him if he would kindly walk down to the area where Mrs. Barnett's house is, he said no that he was only here to view the proposed submission (proposed lot) that he was not here to view the entire parcel. So at that point, she felt that his visit was flawed. She said she is not here to oppose the size of the house, she is saying please put it on the better spot where it is already disturbed. She said they were on Sally Barnett's side when she was in litigation over putting her septic system in the commons area and they are not opposed to her getting the 15,000 square foot permit, but would like it located in the right spot. Mr. Shapiro voiced opposition to the proposed building envelope. He said they would be willing to swap some land or whatever to preserve that property for the future. He urged that the lower part of the property be considered for the building envelope. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 2005 Lenny Oates said the property has been sold and no one has ever discussed building a 15,000 square foot house so he doesn't think this is an appropriate item for this appeal. Secondly, he said Sally can't build in the common area and there is no place else for her to build below the road. Additionally, this hearing is designated as an appeal process not to discuss an exchange of properties with the Shapiros. A neighbor of Ms. Barnett's commented that the only possible place that Ms. Barnett can build is where she is proposing. If she builds on a small part of the common area she would be impacting wildlife, view plains, etc. Sally Barnett commented that when she and her husband bought their home they intended to live there the rest of their lives unfortunately, her husband succumbed from cancer. She said she complied with all the requirements for developing her upper property and she felt that she tried to do everything honestly and above board. She said she has this beautiful natural place to build a house, which has two houses right on either side of it, roads top and bottom, and houses up above it. She explained that the Shapiros house happens to be very close to the property line and is oriented toward her property instead of oriented down the hill and looking out to the open space as all of the other houses in the subdivision are. However, she is sure that something very beautiful, tucked in against hill with trees, is going to put in that place. Mr. Shapiro said that Ms. Barnett has been painted into a corner with covenants, which were approved in 1972. But if the county allows itself to be painted into a corner, with this process, then he thinks it would be setting a very dangerous covenant. Commissioner Ireland said this is going to be a difficult decision but the applicant's attorneys gave a good presentation on behalf of their client. He said he would also like to thank the neighbors for being courteous to each other during their presentations. He explained that at this point, the board will be taking this matter under advisement until the meeting after next, due to Commissioner Farris not being in town for the next meeting. He said the door is never closed to some sort of resolution proposed and developed by the adversarial parties and brought forward to the board. He encouraged both parties to try to arrive at a solution because that solution would probably make them much happier than the solution that the board might arrive at because it would be their solution and be more creative than anything the board can do because all it can do is yes or no decisions not say swap properties or move roads. He said at this point the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Farris moved to continue this matter to August 10, 2005. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed with three yea votes. Commissioners Clapper and Haffield not present. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 2005 ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Farris moved to convene into executive session for the purpose of conferring with counsel on the Grace Church and Smuggler Mountain matters, pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402 4b. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioners Clapper and Haffield not present. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 REGULAR MEETING JULY 13, 2005 o~,~cffully sub/m/~' e Jones // the Board*of County Commissioners Mick Ireland, Chairman Board of County Commissioners g\bocc~minutes~2005~min.reg.07132005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING JULY t3, 2005 PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE THE BOCC -JULY 13, 2005 Vice-Chairperson Ireland: Do we have public comment that is not related to items on the agenda or related to items on the agenda but you just have to speak not because you have to go back to Work or something. Yes please state your name for the record. Ray Poigman: Ray Poigman. From the last meeting, I had some additional questions for the Board regarding the Crystal River Ranch Subdivision. Vice-Chairperson Ireland: I just signed the plat the other day. Fm sorry I missed that but I was on fide the rockies. So what question do you have. Ray Poigman: How much time do I have. Vice-Chairperson Ireland: Well, you have a few minutes, but if you have extensive questioms we will give you access to the staffand you can come back and talk to us in a work session. Ray Poigrnan: few minutes. It's a couple of quick questions. It should not take longer than a Ireland: Go for it. Poigman: I'll sit up here. At the last meeting they had a subdivision of the Crystal River Ranch and of course Commissioner Ireland you weren't here, but Michael Owsley and Dorothea were here and Commissioner Clapper was here. Anyway, she went to comment because we had some discussion of whether the county had a interest in that property. And after some go around, it was decided that they did have an interest and according to the Open Space resolution, the county or the conservation fund couldn't transfer property without an electoral vote. And they called for an executive session that was proper. Anyway, the subdivision went through and I got to thinking that that property was actually a bigger piece of a 442 acre parcel and some of that was sold to Sustainable Settings - 13.5 acres I believe, was given to for a $10.00 fee, was given over to one of the open space board members that taxpayers clearly paid for and I have the documentation. And there was some other easement swapping ora fence line and I don't have that name with me here. My question is Commissioner Clapper assured me, or the public then, that there would always be a vote and she sited the round about open space and the City of Aspen took a vote on that. And I asked the question two or three times so that it was clear that this property would not be given away or sold or whatever, without a public vote and she assured that would be obtained. But going back in our records, we found that it did happen with sustainable settings. We went back, we could not find a vote, and I was just wondering if the commissioners have some explanation for this. And I realize Commissioner Ireland you were not here so you are not perhaps as familiar. Ireland: Dorothea Farris. Farris: I think there is a very complex response required for this. You have submitted many, many questions regarding this. You have had responses from Dale Will, from us. There is no way. The details of this transaction have been explained over and over again and it's not on the agenda. We are not going to respond to this now. Ireland: No. Not now, but I think we can have a written explanation of how that transpired. Is that right John? Ely: Yes. Ireland: We'll get hack to you with a written explanation. Poigman: Okay. And if we want to pull - and I course some taxpayers in Pitkin County. If we wanted to get maybe an agenda item, do we do that through the commissioners or who would you do that? Ireland: You can request the commissioner some work session time. But don't do that until you have had your explanation. Poigman: And who do I get back to for an explanation. Ireland: Hilary. And we'll contact you - it should be what a week or two? Smith: Well, Dale's out of town right now, but next week I'm sure he can put a written response together. Ireland: We'll have it in writing and that way it will be settled.