[42:14] That's weird. Supposed to auto adjust.
[1:17:40] No, they're reconstructing their
entrance a little bit. They just
[1:17:46] constructed. They did it wrong. It
doesn't meet ADA requirements.
[1:17:53] I'll tell you wrong.
[1:17:57] You're good.
[1:18:15] We just
have it celebrating Maya. Yeah. Yeah.
[1:18:24] I'm bringing my daughter
[1:18:30] I talk
[1:18:36] about is he
he
[1:18:41] uh he texted me
[1:18:48] he
was um no I
[1:18:53] can't he was flying
[1:18:59] at 2:00.
No,
[1:19:03] actually just getting out of the city.
We'll have time before work session,
[1:19:13] but he was going through all the
construction, so
[1:19:18] Well, I think Tammy's presentation and
Zach are pretty. Yes, they are.
[1:19:23] Maybe for a little bit. Yeah.
Well, our first item we don't have.
[1:19:30] Yeah, we have to hold
[1:19:57] One thing I didn't think would be
[1:20:02] I
[1:20:09] didn't
[1:20:13] always adding
[1:20:26] came from this morning and closed for
like three hours. Really? I texted I
[1:20:32] texted I was like, "How the hell it's
going to open?" But I have my computer.
[1:20:36] So
apparently just an accident. Just an
[1:20:41] accident. You're right here. You're
right here.
[1:20:45] Um take your time. We're
[1:20:52] So Chris McInness reported to me at the
TPPR inner mountain transportation
[1:20:58] planning region meeting last Friday that
a construction project on a major
[1:21:06] reconstruction of Glenwood Canyon this
year is going to have
[1:21:11] 24hour holes. Wow. In the canyon. In the
canyon. like anticipated holes or
[1:21:18] random. Well, like I certain they're
going to put out information to the
[1:21:24] public just like they do on the spring
project. Um, but I mean that long and
[1:21:31] behold on I7 major issues.
[1:21:41] So anyway, morning Stacy, we ready?
All right, everyone. This is calling to
[1:21:48] order.
It's calling to
[1:21:51] order. Frisco Town Council work session
for April 22nd. First up
[1:21:58] on the agenda today is
[1:22:05] yes the US Forest Service backyard
public comment letter from the town. So,
[1:22:10] I'm hoping that you've all had a chance
to review the draft um that was in your
[1:22:15] packet. Um this is the second time this
would be the second time that we would
[1:22:22] be submitting comments to uh the US
Forest Service process that's going on
[1:22:28] that was presented to you uh
at two meetings ago.
[1:22:35] Um so the public comment period goes
through
[1:22:41] um the date is actually there's actually
two different deadlines. One it depends
[1:22:46] on what you're commenting on. The
comments that we're making follow the
[1:22:50] first deadline but it is the deadline is
before your next meeting. So, we'll be
[1:22:56] able to get this in front of you so that
you could indicate to the mayor whether
[1:23:02] it's okay for him to sign this and turn
it in in its current form. If you'd like
[1:23:07] revisions to that, anything that you'd
like to
[1:23:12] discuss. So, I I read it. I have nothing
to add or take away from it. Anyone
[1:23:17] else?
[1:23:22] The consensus is to Tom that all good
and we I'll let the mayor know that you
[1:23:28] said that. Okay. So, you're already at
this. Okay. So, no replies needed to the
[1:23:33] mayor.
[1:23:36] Okay. That's awesome. Next uh next up on
the agenda
[1:23:41] uh we do have we do have two new council
members with us and uh here today with
[1:23:48] us is uh Emmy Tanoi who I think is when
I went through this gave the best
[1:23:54] training presentation I've had as far as
some very interesting
[1:23:59] details and her topic tonight is going
to be CERS elected officials on boarding
[1:24:04] training and Uh, I think dad, you'll
probably add some comments at some
[1:24:09] point, too. Please do.
Tammy, please go ahead. Thank you very
[1:24:15] much. And good afternoon, everybody.
Thank you so much for having me back. I
[1:24:19] guess it's only been what, a year? About
a year. Yeah, a year. Yeah. So, I I
[1:24:25] really appreciate the opportunity to
come back and especially to meet the two
[1:24:29] new members of the council. How long
have you guys been in this position now?
[1:24:36] about two months. Two months. Would you
say that third meeting? How's that? Is
[1:24:42] it everything you ever dreamed that
would be and more? We we unfortunately
[1:24:48] they they hopped in right at some really
heavy times of some decision making. So,
[1:24:54] we've had some very long meetings uh for
them and uh this one's a little lighter
[1:24:59] tonight. So,
hope that would be the case. Yeah. And
[1:25:05] the other two, um, how long have you
guys been on the council? Probably be
[1:25:09] going my second year. Okay. Actually,
probably around this time. Yes, I'm
[1:25:13] starting my second year. Came here
second year, but when I was on 2014,
[1:25:18] 2018. Okay, great. Good to know. Yeah.
Um, and you know, Fed was talking about
[1:25:25] litigation around your charter and it
reminded me that I owe him an
[1:25:32] apology because I actually wrote that
charter back in the day. And I have to
[1:25:38] admit that I didn't really much about
that particular part of the charter. You
[1:25:43] know, it's one of those things where you
just borrow it from somewhere else and
[1:25:47] you're like, "Sounds good to me, right?"
And and then and you get told it means
[1:25:52] more than your daughter did way alone.
So yeah, and I I think you know it's
[1:25:58] okay. It was an okay result at the end
of the day, but it was definitely
[1:26:02] shocking. The first time I heard that
all matters really does mean all
[1:26:06] matters. I'm like should have been a
little more careful but yeah, it's
[1:26:11] worked out well for us. Yeah. And it's a
good charter. I will say it's one that
[1:26:15] I'm very very proud of. And uh I happen
to know that you know with imitation
[1:26:21] being this dearest form of flattery that
the fact that kind of somewhat
[1:26:26] replicated itself I I think it means
that it's a good charter.
[1:26:31] in Hayden among other places. Curious
where you know you know you one of your
[1:26:37] close neighbors has a very close version
of it and changes and some I think
[1:26:44] fairly vital parts but one of your close
neighbors has that chart of two. So
[1:26:50] today we're going to talk about uh five
lesser known things about the elected
[1:26:54] officials job and you can tell me
whether I'm on the mark or or not in
[1:27:00] terms of what I do with some of the
lesser known aspects of the job. Um but
[1:27:06] first of all congratulations to you on
your appointment and to you all on your
[1:27:11] continued service to the the town. Um it
it really is a wonderful thing when
[1:27:16] citizens step up to serve in their
communities because it's not something
[1:27:20] you have to do on jury duty and it
involves a lot of work and some of it is
[1:27:26] thankless and it involves a lot of late
nights. So you know the fact that you're
[1:27:31] stepping up to lead your community is
really a a wonderful thing. Uh we do at
[1:27:37] CERSA have some resources for elected
officials. So please check out our
[1:27:42] website at cersa.org. org. Uh we were
also very much instrumental in writing
[1:27:47] that publication that is before you and
we'll be refreshing that I think in the
[1:27:52] next year or two. But for now I think
it's still a a pretty legit source of
[1:27:58] sort of you know plain English um talk
about liability areas and how you can
[1:28:05] increase uh your effectiveness from a
governance standpoint.
[1:28:11] So just a little bit about CERSA because
sometimes I'll get through an hour of
[1:28:16] talking about you know what we're going
to talk about and then the only question
[1:28:20] I'll get is and what is CERSA
again? I just want to say that CERSA is
[1:28:26] actually your public energy
selfinsurance.
[1:28:31] Frisco and the other communities that
belong to CERSA actually created CERSA
[1:28:36] by intergovernmental agreement to be uh
essentially your insurance provider. So
[1:28:42] among other things we provide property
and liability coverage to uh the 90% of
[1:28:48] cities and towns throughout Colorado
that are CERSA members. And so many
[1:28:53] times when there are claims or
litigation against the town, they do
[1:28:59] trigger coverage. And so we become an
involved partner with the town to uh
[1:29:04] ensure a resolution that is legally
sound and works uh from your standpoint
[1:29:12] as well as ours. So that's what we do at
Starstone. Also, we very much view the
[1:29:18] governing body as sort of at the very
top uh not in terms of just, you know,
[1:29:24] being literally at the very top of the
org chart, but really being a critical
[1:29:29] part of risk management. I think you all
set the tone for the community as a
[1:29:35] whole. And so whatever tone you're
setting can really have consequences
[1:29:41] from a liability standpoint. You know,
when things are dysfunctional in a
[1:29:45] community, that tends to reveal itself
in many ways, but in part in the form of
[1:29:52] claims. Would you back me up on that? I
know you've had your share of troubled
[1:29:57] communities that, you know, have been
fortunate to have you um you know,
[1:30:01] working with them from a standpoint, but
isn't it true? Absolutely. The better
[1:30:06] the council works together, the better
the community work,
[1:30:11] the better the whole team um in in the
town work as well.
[1:30:16] So today's topics and uh please take a
quick look at the this topic list and
[1:30:22] tell me if there are any other topics
that you would like to cover or if you
[1:30:26] think of any as we're we're talking
please uh let me know because I think
[1:30:30] between dad and myself we'll be able to
cover them. though. Number one, in terms
[1:30:35] of things you might not have thought
about in terms of your positions, uh the
[1:30:40] need to consider private communications
to be mostly a thing of the past. Maybe
[1:30:46] that's just a tad exaggerated, but I
think it's pretty close to the mark that
[1:30:52] you know the transparency laws that
govern your communications as well as
[1:30:57] the expectations of the citizen uh does
mean uh that private communications
[1:31:03] really um need to be done very very
cautiously if at all. And we'll talk in
[1:31:09] detail about each of these. Uh here's
another one. You weren't just elected to
[1:31:14] be a legislator at the municipal level,
you are now a judge, too.
[1:31:20] Congratulations, judges. Um, did that
surprise you a little bit or were you
[1:31:24] familiar enough with sort of what goes
on uh on the town council that you were,
[1:31:31] you know, you weren't shocked to
discover, hey, I have a quasi judicial
[1:31:34] role now. That surprised me. I learned
that. Yeah. Yeah. And the rules of
[1:31:40] engagement, as we'll discuss, are like
radically different between your
[1:31:44] legislative role and your quasi judicial
role. Social media. Who's on social
[1:31:50] media? Well, who's not on social media?
Right. I have not
[1:32:04] overw primarily because uh I have
[1:32:09] dogs. They insist on maintaining a
presence on social media and they do
[1:32:15] require my assistance.
[1:32:19] That's pretty much it for me. Um next
you're operating at high altitude now
[1:32:25] literally of course but also uh in the
sense of where you are organization and
[1:32:32] we'll talk a little bit about that and
then sort of related to that um
[1:32:36] personnel matters you've got people to
handle that now uh and so there are some
[1:32:41] dimensions around
that. So let's talk about transparency
[1:32:46] and open meetings and other laws that
govern your communications. um as a
[1:32:52] council member. So, we've got the
Colorado open meetings law and it does
[1:32:56] apply to all meetings of the governing
body. So, this is a public meeting even
[1:33:03] though it's a work session and it's
governed by the open meetings law. Uh
[1:33:07] your boards, commissions, committees,
etc. are likewise governed by the same
[1:33:12] set of
laws. And I know we were talking earlier
[1:33:17] about well is there a quorum? Right?
there were three uh for for a few
[1:33:21] minutes there. Um and the open meetings
law actually applies to three or more
[1:33:26] members of a governing body if it's a
seven member governing body or a quorum
[1:33:32] whichever is less. So even though you
wouldn't have had a quorum with three
[1:33:37] for the you know transaction in business
this law still would have been in
[1:33:41] effect. So you know three is the magic
number when you have a seven member
[1:33:46] governing
body. Also, executive sessions. Have you
[1:33:50] guys been involved in any executive
sessions to this point?
[1:33:55] We introduced that to him right away.
Okay, good. Super duper important
[1:34:00] because those are like the only very
limited circumstances when you can have
[1:34:06] a discussion away from the public eye.
And so, not only are there some, you
[1:34:12] know, pretty strict procedural
requirements, I call them the Miranda
[1:34:16] warning,
um, but also some substantive
[1:34:21] requirements in terms of the very
limited number of topics that can be
[1:34:26] discussed in executive session and also
some requirements around, you know, what
[1:34:31] happens should the discussion, you know,
as human discussions will kind of start
[1:34:37] to stray away from those.
limited authorized profit. So, it's an
[1:34:43] area where you really kind of have to
hue to the straight and narrow and the
[1:34:48] the letter of the executive session law
as well as the the spirit because it is
[1:34:54] easy to to get into trouble. And uh at
CERSO we've seen some litigation around
[1:35:00] uh governing bodies that uh played fast
and loose with executive sessions then
[1:35:06] became publicly embarrassed as a result.
So uh it is an area where caution is
[1:35:12] very important. Also serial meetings
have become kind of a focus of scrutiny
[1:35:18] and uh litigation. What's a serial
meeting? So if you were to say to
[1:35:24] yourself, well, three is the magic
number, right? And this law kicks in. So
[1:35:29] why don't we just have meetings two by
two by two by two until we cover all
[1:35:34] seven of us? Does that sound like an
appropriate thing to
[1:35:41] do? I go back way before. And so back in
the day, I was like, well, okay, it's
[1:35:49] not three, so go ahead. Right? But when
you think about it, having serial
[1:35:55] meetings 2 by two, even if it doesn't
necessarily violate the letter of the
[1:36:01] law, does it kind of play fast and loose
with the spirit of the law? Right. I
[1:36:08] think it does. Have Have there been
places that have gotten in trouble in
[1:36:12] trouble with that? Yes. Okay. Yes, there
there have been and you know I don't
[1:36:17] know that we yet have any definitive um
court rulings on it but definitely
[1:36:22] judges have frowned upon it and I think
rightfully so and is that kind of if
[1:36:30] if two by twos a decision has been made
and that decision then doesn't
[1:36:37] get also publicly discussed and decided.
Yeah. especially if that is the case.
[1:36:44] But really, you know, the ML doesn't
just say decisions have to be public. It
[1:36:50] says have to be public, right? And so
for for those reasons, I would
[1:36:55] discourage at this point in my career uh
the holding of 2 by two serial meetings.
[1:37:01] It it it just it doesn't look good. And
one of these days, somebody's going to
[1:37:06] make that law in a definitive way or the
legislators are going to step in and say
[1:37:12] no more of
this. Let's see. Non-meating
[1:37:16] communications. So, email text, right?
Social media.
[1:37:23] If more than one of you were to appear
on on the same place on social media and
[1:37:29] you were to start discussing public
business, right? You can see how that
[1:37:34] could implicate the open meeting law,
right? You're having a discussion and
[1:37:39] there's the magic number. Same thing
with email. This is where it kind of
[1:37:44] starts to feel a little non-intuitive,
right? Because you're like, email is
[1:37:48] writing. It's not a meeting, but the OML
actually explicitly says emails can be a
[1:37:56] meeting, right? And that's because as
long as you're hitting reply all, right,
[1:38:02] you're having a public discussion even
though you're typing it rather than, you
[1:38:06] know, speaking it. And so that is also
problematic. Texting uh same issue. uh
[1:38:13] and so texting uh can equally implicate
the open meetings law where this has
[1:38:19] gotten a few people embarrassed and I
don't know that there's been any
[1:38:23] litigation around it but people were
discovered uh council members were
[1:38:31] discovered to be texting one another on
the
[1:38:36] deis during public meetings doing their
little private commentary about that
[1:38:44] Is private commentary about a public
meeting still a discussion of public
[1:38:50] business? Well, it it sure is, right?
Though that's also not cool. And again,
[1:38:55] one of the lesser known ways in which
you can kind of get into trouble. I
[1:38:59] mean, I remember u most municipalities
and counties dealt with this or public
[1:39:05] bodies during CO. When we first really
went to a lot of electronic meetings and
[1:39:11] it included your legislative body, it
was properly noticed, but people weren't
[1:39:17] used to being in that electronic meeting
and not being able to text their
[1:39:21] colleagues. And we had to we first
discovered it, then we had to do
[1:39:24] something about it. Yeah. Yeah.
Interesting. Yeah. Yeah. that would kind
[1:39:29] of naturally happen if you're kind of
all in separate places and can't do
[1:39:34] that you might be doing. So the thing
about electronic communications that's
[1:39:40] especially kind of scary is that yeah it
implicates the open meetings law but it
[1:39:45] also implicates of course the open
records act because the written
[1:39:50] communications right and so the open
records act is another transparency law
[1:39:56] that basically says any document
pertaining to public business can be
[1:40:04] requested by the public right any member
of the public can say, "Hey, I would
[1:40:09] like to see all of your emails about um
public business for the last two
[1:40:15] months." And
would clerk's office have to cough that
[1:40:22] up, right?
Um would you think you could say, "Well,
[1:40:28] I'll just use my official town email for
that purpose then." Um but then I'll do
[1:40:34] my sort of
I don't want to say secret, but secret
[1:40:39] communications about public business on
my personal account. Would that be a way
[1:40:44] to kind of shield your public uh
communications by using your private
[1:40:50] email? No, it's a way then to expose
your private email, right, to having to
[1:40:57] be rifled through to discover any
documents pertaining to public business.
[1:41:02] And I don't know about you, but I would
rather not have my Yes, I still have a
[1:41:07] Yahoo
account. Um, I would rather not have
[1:41:13] that picked through because then it
would be revealed how just how many
[1:41:18] pairs of boots I buy on Amazon on a
regular basis and that would be very
[1:41:22] embarrassing. So, but you know, that's
what we would have to do, right? is that
[1:41:27] goes through each of your emails
wherever they're lodged and say, "Okay,
[1:41:32] which of these satisfies the request?"
So, I think you do want to exercise
[1:41:37] caution to make sure that you do limit
your communications about public
[1:41:42] business to your ter email so that they
can be easily retrieved should there be
[1:41:48] a request for them. We've had council
members in the past or in other places
[1:41:53] that I've worked that for ease of going
through their email have funneled that
[1:41:59] their email to the same place.
Um, and that's not a good practice
[1:42:04] either because that mixes them on a
place that you may not want to be mixed
[1:42:09] and it opens it all to public scrutiny.
Point on it. I I'm doing open records
[1:42:16] as well. It's not just that they will go
through your email. You will lose you
[1:42:21] can lose possession of your laptop a
great period of days while a forensic IT
[1:42:27] scientist goes through it looking for
and retrieving emails that you thought
[1:42:32] were deleted, right? That that as you
probably know remain on the hard drive
[1:42:35] of your computer until they get
overwritten. So it's not just a privacy
[1:42:39] issue. So when can I have my
laptop issue? Yeah, good point. through
[1:42:46] your bone. Yeah.
Yeah. Good point. So, caution very
[1:42:51] important. And then, you know,
electronic communications of all kinds
[1:42:56] are potentially subject to the civil
discovery process, right? So, in the
[1:43:00] event that there is a claim where your
emails could be implicated, there will
[1:43:05] be a hold, right? First of all, placed
on that. Um, and then ultimately, right,
[1:43:10] there could be a discovery process. And
so you'll have opposing council, right?
[1:43:15] And their IT people going through those,
you know potentially
[1:43:22] um so see what I mean about
communications no longer being very very
[1:43:27] private um when you're a public
official. So
[1:43:33] about first amendment and social media
[1:43:39] so yeah thank you. Um quasi judicial
issues. So your role as a judge in
[1:43:44] addition to being a legislator. So um
clearly right you guys kind of
[1:43:50] understand and probably intuitively
understand the legislative role because
[1:43:55] there's lots of models for that at other
levels of government. But not all of
[1:44:01] those levels of government also have uh
members who have a quasi judicial role.
[1:44:07] that's almost unique, I think, to
counties and municipalities. I don't
[1:44:13] know about school boards. Maybe there's
a little bit in there, but
[1:44:17] municipalities are really where that
game is strong in terms of having a
[1:44:22] quasi judicial role for elected
officials. So, I would break out your
[1:44:27] responsibilities broadly into two areas,
the legislative and the quasi judicial.
[1:44:33] And then you know if we compare sort of
the activities and the rules of
[1:44:39] engagement that apply to each you can
almost see that they're black and white
[1:44:45] proposals. So legislative activities are
the ones that probably came to light
[1:44:50] right when you were first considering um
taking this office right you are going
[1:44:56] to listen to citizens contact you about
their priorities and their concerns. uh
[1:45:02] you're going to be potentially
investigating those issues yourself,
[1:45:07] right? You're going to have opinions
because you too are members of the
[1:45:11] community about those issues before they
ever, right, come to the agenda of the
[1:45:17] council as a
whole. You might even talk to each
[1:45:21] other, right? you hear about something
from a citizen and you start talking
[1:45:26] about the issues not in a serial meeting
sense of course but you know when I say
[1:45:33] don't have serial meetings I I don't
mean don't ever communicate because you
[1:45:37] will communicate right and if you're
doing so in a way that's not intended to
[1:45:42] skirt the requirement of the open
meetings law then I don't really have an
[1:45:46] issue with that I think you just have to
be careful about the appearances uh you
[1:45:51] might even uh work in advance to see if
there's a consensus around a particular
[1:45:56] issue before you bring it forward as a
legislative priority. Right? Are these
[1:46:02] all okay legislative activities?
Absolutely. These are accepted things uh
[1:46:09] that are part of the legislative
process. And then ultimately right after
[1:46:15] all of this groundwork, there might come
before the body as a whole an ordinance
[1:46:20] or other enactment that will have
prospective application to everybody who
[1:46:26] is encompassed within that ordinance
enactment. And so that's the essence of
[1:46:32] legislation, right? It's prospective in
nature. It doesn't single out the one
[1:46:37] entity or person or business. It kind of
applies prospectively to everybody,
[1:46:43] right, that you intended to encompass.
So that is legislation. And so when you
[1:46:49] think about the rules of
engagement, pretty loose, right? They're
[1:46:54] pretty
loose. Quasi
[1:47:00] judicial. So quasi judicial is literally
the opposite in that it's
[1:47:06] not, you know, a general ordinance of
prospective application to everybody.
[1:47:13] You're taking action on a single
entity's rights, a single person's
[1:47:18] rights, right? A single business's right
using already established law. applying
[1:47:26] that established law to the facts that
you hear at a hearing, marrying up the
[1:47:32] facts and the law to arrive at the
correct decision. So that is exactly
[1:47:38] what judges do, right? Uh and it is so
different from
[1:47:43] legislation. And so when you step into
right your
[1:47:48] responsibilities not really thinking
about the distinction between
[1:47:52] legislative and quasi judicial it's easy
to carry over the relatively loose way
[1:47:59] in which you do legislation over into
quasi judicial and then you get directly
[1:48:06] into trouble as a result. But as long as
you kind of say okay I'm issue spotting.
[1:48:12] I know this is legislative or I know
this is quasi judicial and then apply
[1:48:17] the proper rules of engagement to each
of those then you will not get in
[1:48:22] trouble personally. You will also be
doing that a huge favor because quasi
[1:48:29] judicial matters uh can be appealed
through rule 106. Have you guys this
[1:48:35] point heard about rule 106?
Yeah of course. Yeah. So, it's the route
[1:48:41] of appeal for quasi judicial matters and
it's kind of a slam dunk if you arrived
[1:48:48] at the right decision and you followed
the proper procedure, right? Because the
[1:48:54] there's a lot of deaths granted to your
decision as long as you followed the
[1:48:59] rules. It's like what are the the magic
words that competent evidence on the
[1:49:05] record? Yep. Exactly. And what does that
mean, Dan? He asked me, he asked me
[1:49:10] twice last time when I did.
[1:49:15] Say that again. Confident evidence means
enough evidence of a proposition which
[1:49:22] if reasonable minds could differ to the
conclusion. It's it's pretty
[1:49:27] differential. Um so you know abuse of
discretion is another way like use
[1:49:32] discretion. We would never do that,
right? Um, and so it's a pretty
[1:49:37] differential standard. As long as you
follow the the rules, um, that's going
[1:49:41] to hand you a winner, right? So that's
another
[1:49:47] reason.
Um, though at this point, you're very
[1:49:52] well familiar with what is judicial and
what is not. And I'm sure to the extent
[1:49:56] that it's not clear, um, you know, it it
will be pointed out to you this is a
[1:50:01] judicial matter. So uh there will be no
doubt from that standpoint. But you know
[1:50:06] if we go back to the things that you do
for legislation, right, you can see
[1:50:12] black and white that these are things
you do not do in quasi judicial, right?
[1:50:19] You do not listen to citizens contact
you in advance of hearing the matter. Is
[1:50:26] that going to be hard to do at
times? I would think so. Right? Because
[1:50:32] one of the joys of municipal government
is access, right? The fact that
[1:50:37] everybody knows who you are, they know
how to get a hold of you, right? And and
[1:50:42] they don't know these rules. Exactly
right. Exactly right. Yeah. And so, you
[1:50:47] know, they may be surprised that you
were so open to discussions on matter a
[1:50:52] legislative and then suddenly here's
matter judicial and you're like, get
[1:50:58] away from me. Right? And so, you know,
it it is important to kind of arm
[1:51:02] yourself with what's okay and what's not
because uh if you don't, then you may be
[1:51:07] pulled in advertently into um activities
that will if not make
[1:51:17] you not inappropriate decision maker, at
least create the apparent that you are
[1:51:22] not an appropriate decision maker. So
listening to citizens who contact you in
[1:51:26] person, by email, on social media, etc.
Not something to do on a quasi judicial
[1:51:33] matter. What should you
do? I always say blame the attorney
[1:51:38] because that's one of the things we're
good for. But another thing you can do
[1:51:42] is say, you know, this is a quasi
judicial matter. A hearing has been or
[1:51:47] soon will be scheduled. And so, uh, the
most effective thing that citizens can
[1:51:53] do is sign up to testify at the hearing
so that all of us can hear what you have
[1:52:00] to say and it can be on the record,
right? So, if you explain it that way, I
[1:52:06] think citizens won't go away mad or
assume that you're, you know, kind of
[1:52:11] trying to push them away, right? uh
there are good reasons why you should
[1:52:16] encourage them to come to the hearing or
at least submit testimony for the record
[1:52:22] in some other fashion.
So, just to pick that apart a little
[1:52:26] bit, when you say um something is
scheduled as a quasi judicial matter or
[1:52:34] will soon be, what if it's not scheduled
yet and we don't anticipate it be
[1:52:42] scheduled like a land use item that's
being heard by your planning
[1:52:47] commission, but but it has every one of
those kind of has the potential to be
[1:52:53] but the council is the appellet body for
the right right decision so they might
[1:52:57] as well be a decision maker it doesn't
make any difference okay yeah that's a
[1:53:01] good clarification you know maybe it's
not soon will be but foreseeably could
[1:53:06] be right foreseeably could be um so
investigating the issues
[1:53:13] yourselves you know you guys each have
strong opinions right about this
[1:53:18] community its priorities what you want
where etc
[1:53:23] You may have subject matter
expertise. A lot of subject matter
[1:53:28] experts end up on a council because
citizens trust their expertise. But
[1:53:33] oddly enough, you know, when you become
a council member, you guys become like
[1:53:38] the ultimate generalists, right? And you
know, I mentioned you've got
[1:53:44] people, well, you've got people for
subject matter, too. And so it's not
[1:53:50] incumbent upon elected officials to try
to become subject matter experts on any
[1:53:57] given quasi judicial topic because that
expertise will be given to you by those
[1:54:05] whose job it is to do that and your job
then is to make the decisions.
[1:54:12] It may be that you have a subject matter
expertise that naturally lends itself to
[1:54:18] being shared, right? Uh attorneys of
course are the worst offenders in that
[1:54:23] regard because we only see the entire
world in legal terms. Everything is a
[1:54:29] legal issue. And so I'm the expert. You
ought to be looking at me. Right? If I
[1:54:34] were a member of the council, I might be
inclined to feel that way. I've been a
[1:54:37] member of a nonprofit board. And you
bet, right? I threw my weight around
[1:54:45] when I thought it was, you know, for
good, not evil by trying to characterize
[1:54:50] it as a legal issue. Look at me, right?
But then we didn't have quasi judicial
[1:54:54] matters on a nonprofit board. So that
was, you know, maybe out of line, but
[1:54:59] certainly wasn't unlawful behavior on my
part. But you could see where subject
[1:55:04] matter expertise could cause one member
of the council to have undue influence
[1:55:09] over the rest of the council in terms
of, you know, being looked at as the
[1:55:15] expert, right? And so you don't need to
do that. You shouldn't do that because
[1:55:20] each of you stands on your own as a
generalist. Each of you holds 17th of
[1:55:26] the power and the decision making um
authority of the the
[1:55:32] council. Let's look at another one. Oh,
investigating the issues yourself. So,
[1:55:37] you're like, well, okay, I got the
planning
[1:55:41] commission, but I'm a little bit
dissatisfied because it didn't seem to
[1:55:45] cover a couple of areas where I have
questions. So, I'm going to go out and
[1:55:50] investigate myself. Is that an okay
thing for a judicial decision maker
[1:55:57] to because at that point you're not a
decision maker, you're an investigator,
[1:56:03] right? So no, that is not an appropriate
thing to do. And I do remember a rule
[1:56:09] 106 action where I was defending the
city council and I had two members of
[1:56:14] the
council actually state on the record the
[1:56:20] investigation that they did themselves
on a prospective land use application.
[1:56:26] I've seen that before too
it's fine. It's not in this body
[1:56:31] previous
one. It was like, "Well, your business,
[1:56:37] um, I happen to know uses bright orange
in all of its branding, including the
[1:56:46] building front and all of the signage."
Uh, and I happened to know this because
[1:56:51] I visited one of your sister businesses
in the town next door, and the orange
[1:56:57] was so garish, I couldn't, right? And
so, I'm voting no. Was that
[1:57:05] appropriate? I thought that was the sure
loser. Thank goodness there were seven
[1:57:11] other members who hadn't done that. But
if there's been a majority that had done
[1:57:17] that, I think we would have lost that
rule 106 for sure. So investigating,
[1:57:22] lobbying and being lobbyed, right?
That's okay in the legislative context.
[1:57:28] But in a qualified judicial matter, you
each of you has to make up your own mind
[1:57:35] based upon the evidence that you hear
and the law that you apply. And so
[1:57:40] lobbying and being lobbyed are
inappropriate. Working in advance to
[1:57:45] create a consensus. Needless to say,
right, uh judicial people do not do
[1:57:52] that. They don't work in advance to to
do anything. They listen to the evidence
[1:57:56] and then render a decision. And this is
an interesting place where I have seen a
[1:58:04] convergence of working in advance via
email
[1:58:10] communication, right? And somebody got
suspicious and asked for the emails
[1:58:16] about this particular topic. And lo and
behold, right, council members were
[1:58:21] piping amongst themselves, "This is a
great project. I fully intend to vote
[1:58:26] yes on it." How about you? Sand open
meetings. Exactly.
[1:58:32] Exactly. Right. They Yeah. And working
in
[1:58:35] advance. So yeah, like Oh, please. Um so
so you can see how uh quasi judicial
[1:58:43] issues you might think well how can I
get in trouble doing this but it's very
[1:58:49] very easy to get into trouble or having
strong convictions prejudgments that you
[1:58:55] don't hesitate to voice
yeah this will go back a long long time
[1:59:01] but I remember a um city council that
was the liquor licensing authority and
[1:59:08] they had one member who was completely
opposed to every liquor
[1:59:16] license and her perspective was, "Well,
liquor leads to dancing and dancing
[1:59:23] leads to spin and so I've got my finger
on the no button on every liquor license
[1:59:30] every time, no matter
what." Was that appropriate? Have to
[1:59:35] have strong personal convictions.
You gotta respect her. She was very
[1:59:41] consistent.
But was that one of the the legal
[1:59:46] criteria around granting or denying a a
liquor license? Most definitely not.
[1:59:51] Right. And so I remember Charlie.
[Music]
[1:59:57] He was like, I know we have this
problem, but I can't fix it. And thank
[2:00:02] goodness there's only one. So we get we
won't get in trouble as long as there's
[2:00:06] only one. But you can see how right if
there was a substantial minority or if
[2:00:12] there was lobbying around that
perspective then you could quickly end
[2:00:16] up with decisions that would be
subjected to to legal
[2:00:21] challenges. All right. So that is quasi
judicial. Um I kind of covered it by
[2:00:26] looking at the legislative stuff but
does that make sense? Have I beaten it
[2:00:31] to
death? Would you like to add anything
[2:00:35] else?
Okay. All
[2:00:41] right. So, it really is sort of a
one-hour training and I want to uh get
[2:00:46] on to the next topic, but you know, here
are some suggestions. Don't make up your
[2:00:51] mind before the
hearing. Don't make prejuditial
[2:00:55] prehering statements. Uh don't speak
with one side or the other before the
[2:01:01] hearing. uh be careful even when
speaking with staff about a matter,
[2:01:07] [Music]
right? Because you can kind of betray,
[2:01:12] right? That you have a perspective or a
fixed idea of what you want the outcome
[2:01:17] to be by asking pointed questions,
right? Or saying, I want you to research
[2:01:22] this part, right? Give me some say no
kind of thing. Uh, and so you do want to
[2:01:28] be very very careful in speaking with
one side or the other. Um, or really
[2:01:32] with with anybody. Uh, I don't know if
pro and con petitions are even a thing
[2:01:38] much anymore, but yeah, don't sign any
of those about a pending quasi judicial
[2:01:43] matter. And of course, don't be a
witness at your own hearing. So, you
[2:01:47] know, in this regard, have you guys ever
um been in a hearing where you were
[2:01:53] like, I wish somebody would testify
about this because nobody is touching on
[2:01:59] this particular area, but I happen to
know. What would you do if you happen to
[2:02:07] know, but it didn't seem like anything
was coming out in the testimony?
[2:02:12] Did you say it yourself?
Good question. of the appropriate
[2:02:17] individual, whoever is providing you
with the testimony you have a question
[2:02:20] about. Yeah. Or whoever is in the best
position to know.
[2:02:24] Yeah. Could be staff, could be the
developer. Yeah. Yeah. In our um garish
[2:02:29] orange example,
right? Okay. He drove by, right? A
[2:02:35] similar development, but he didn't have
to say that. He could have said, "Oh, by
[2:02:40] the way, Mr. witness. So, what what are
your brand colors and how do you intend
[2:02:47] to incorporate them right in the
building? Franchises have
[2:02:53] options in using those colors. Yeah,
[2:02:59] exactly. So, I I think we've covered
this enough, but suffice it to say that
[2:03:05] if you do these things like lobbying one
another, talking with citizens, etc.,
[2:03:10] Then you know enough of those can end up
making you guys look like biased
[2:03:16] decision makers which is the last thing
that you want to be right. You want to
[2:03:21] be and comfort yourselves as unbiased
decision makers. And so now when we talk
[2:03:27] about exparte or outside the hearing
context, we are literally trying to
[2:03:32] preserve your prerogative to participate
in the hearing without being challenged.
[2:03:39] So I had a mayor once um listen to me on
this presentation for a while and then
[2:03:46] she said to me Tammy all these rules
around exparte content do lawyers just
[2:03:52] make them up to try to control
them and my feelings were hurt
[2:03:58] man you know I'm literally like trying
to protect your prerogative to
[2:04:03] participate and also protect like the
integrity of the decision.
[2:04:08] So that if it's challenged, it will be
defensible and we will
[2:04:13] prevail. That's literally our only
motivations for that. I talked with them
[2:04:18] last week about what about the exparte
communication you cannot avoid. You're
[2:04:23] you're trapped in the in the line at the
grocery and no matter how many times you
[2:04:28] say I really need to hear this at the
hearing. This could impact the integrity
[2:04:33] of the decision. They won't stop.
And it goes on. It goes on and I've told
[2:04:39] them, "Disclose it. Tell me about it. We
will rehabilitate you at the hearing.
[2:04:44] And by rehabilitating, it simply just
means letting the other side know of the
[2:04:48] communication and its nature." So they
have a chance to respond. As I've told
[2:04:52] them, there's nothing illegal,
unethical, immoral about the expert
[2:04:57] communication, not having one and then
not disclosing it. you know, try not to
[2:05:02] happen, but if you can't avoid it,
disclose it and all will be well. Yeah,
[2:05:06] it's a very cleansing power.
So, just because I'm still learning a
[2:05:12] lot about all of these things, let's say
somebody comes up to us with with a
[2:05:17] topic that we're not sure if it's quasi,
judicial, or
[2:05:21] legislative. We hear them and all we
need to do is just let everybody know
[2:05:25] that we heard this when we learned that
it's quasi judicial.
[2:05:30] I think that's essentially correct.
Yeah. And you know, as as you spend time
[2:05:34] on the council, you'll be able to issue
spot a lot
[2:05:38] better. Most of the time, right, when
citizens want to talk to you, it's on a
[2:05:43] couple of things. One, purely
administrative matters or
[2:05:48] two, matters, right? So, they're not
there to talk to you about policy
[2:05:54] issues. What if that's vision? They're
probably wanting to get specific. So, I
[2:06:02] would have your antenna up whenever that
[2:06:07] happens. Social media. So, I guess I
don't need to say a whole lot about this
[2:06:12] because you guys are exercising some
really good best practices there in
[2:06:17] terms of staying off, but unfortunately
not everybody is. Um, and so we got to
[2:06:24] talk a little bit about the case law
because it's largely pretty good. And
[2:06:31] yet, if you talk to the city attorneys,
if you talk to, you know, me or Pam
[2:06:37] Light, the legal beagles at CERSA, we're
like very cautious because even though
[2:06:44] that the case law as given to us by the
US Supreme Court is actually not bad,
[2:06:48] there's lots of good reasons to continue
the way you are in terms of limiting
[2:06:54] your activity on social media. So, we
had this case a couple of years ago and
[2:07:01] there were actually there were two cases
and it was funny that the the one case
[2:07:07] that went up to the Supreme Court that
received the most notoriety actually
[2:07:11] involved a a city manager, but he was a
public official just like any other
[2:07:17] public official. And so, the case law
that he made applies equally to elected
[2:07:23] officials.
So the question revolved around, you
[2:07:28] know, when can a public
official end up running a foul of the
[2:07:35] first
amendment for blocking somebody on
[2:07:40] social media, right, on a sort of public
discussion page. And
[2:07:47] so Supreme Court was pretty differential
and said number one, right, in order for
[2:07:54] the potential for liability liability to
exist, that official must possess actual
[2:08:01] authority to speak on the city or town's
behalf on the particular matter at issue
[2:08:08] where some kind of block right was put
on. Now ask
[2:08:14] yourselves as individual elected
officials, how often am I the one in
[2:08:21] actual authority to speak on behalf of
the
[2:08:26] Not that often, right? Yeah.
[2:08:31] Yeah. Exactly. So that in itself was a
pretty good win at least from a
[2:08:35] liability standpoint. And then secondly,
the official must purport to be
[2:08:41] exercising that authority right when
speaking or suppressing speech on those
[2:08:48] social media posts. So not
only do you have to have actual
[2:08:53] authority, but you also have to say as a
council member of the town of I hereby
[2:09:00] exercise my actual authority to
when was the last time that happened?
[2:09:06] Never. Right? Everybody does social
media stuff as their own
[2:09:12] opinion. And so this is one hint. If
you're ever on social media, you can
[2:09:17] preface this statement. You can preface
the whole page by saying opinions are my
[2:09:22] own only. I'm not recording to speak on
behalf
[2:09:28] of that's one you can help shield
yourself. So this is a pretty good case
[2:09:34] from that standpoint. But still, you
know, this poor manager, right, started
[2:09:39] out with a personal page. Then when he
was appointed as city manager, he made
[2:09:44] that personal page kind of somewhat
public. You know, he still posted
[2:09:49] pictures of his daughter, etc. But he
also started doing things like official
[2:09:54] city surveys, right, and things like
that. And then when a couple of people
[2:10:00] um started becoming trollish on his
page, right, he started blocking them or
[2:10:06] deleting comments when he thought they
were derogatory or
[2:10:11] stupid. Seems like kind of a natural
thing to do. Um but he did end up going
[2:10:18] to federal district court, went to a
federal appellet court, and it went all
[2:10:24] the way to the US Supreme Court. And so
even though the result was a good one,
[2:10:29] would you say that he was a loser
anyway? Yeah. Right. Who who were the
[2:10:36] only winners in this? The attorneys. The
attorneys. Yeah. Thank you. Right.
[2:10:41] Because it was years and years of
litigation and years and years of
[2:10:45] uncertainty, albeit a decent result at
the end. So that is what from a best
[2:10:51] practices standpoint, you know, using
caution and social media continues to be
[2:10:56] our our best advice. And also this case
was a very narrow issue, right? When are
[2:11:02] the federal civil rights laws violated,
right? Pursuant to the first amendment
[2:11:08] because you brought or deleted somebody
or somebody's post. So it's a very
[2:11:14] narrow issue. There's a whole world of
other laws that that can be potentially
[2:11:20] implicated, right, around social media
like information
[2:11:25] laws. Um, we already talked about open
record issues and a host of others. And
[2:11:33] so, you know, keeping away from social
media or at a minimum keeping it light,
[2:11:39] right? doing FYIs, not getting into
substantive discussions or arguments, I
[2:11:45] think does continue to be our best
advice. Um, you know, when you have
[2:11:51] trolls, right, trying to attack you,
what is it that they want most?
[2:11:58] Reaction. Yeah. Reaction, attention. And
so, not giving them that will keep you
[2:12:04] from being able to feed them. Now, I'm
sure this is not happening in Prisco,
[2:12:08] but it does happen in other communities
where individual elected officials start
[2:12:14] weaponizing social media against the
public or even against one
[2:12:20] another. Not cool, right? It really does
not it's not a good look, right? when um
[2:12:26] people are like, "I'm not going to say
this to somebody's face, but I sure have
[2:12:31] no fear about typing it behind their
back and hoping they see it." Right? It
[2:12:37] feels so junior high when you see that
happening. And it's it's really not cool
[2:12:42] and it's really not productive, right?
If the idea is to forge a consensus
[2:12:48] around issues to keep your agendas
moving forward, then being on social
[2:12:54] media and using it as a weapon really
does work at counterpurposes with
[2:12:59] that. So legislative versus
administrative matters, where are you
[2:13:04] focusing your efforts? So this is the
most um basic of org charts but I think
[2:13:11] it's accurate to say that you know each
community is kind of organized this way.
[2:13:17] We start with the ownership right which
would be the the
[2:13:20] citizens and then governance the
governing
[2:13:24] body management your manager supervisors
and department heads and then finally
[2:13:31] frontline employees. Accurate. Yeah
accurate if very basic. Uh, I use this
[2:13:36] to illustrate three things. Um, one,
time horizon. So, when you look at the
[2:13:42] time horizons of your frontline
employees, they're pretty short time
[2:13:47] horizons, right? They're like, what do
we need to get accomplished
[2:13:51] today? So, they're looking at today.
Your supervisors, their time horizons
[2:13:56] are a little further out. Uh, what do we
need to get accomplished this week? Uh,
[2:14:01] what's on our work plan for this month?
your manager, you know, he's got his eye
[2:14:05] focused even further out, right? He's
got a work plan for the whole year.
[2:14:09] Probably you have a fiveyear plan if not
right longer in duration. And so his
[2:14:16] eyes are cast further out. But as the
governing body, you know, your time
[2:14:21] horizons should be the furthest out of
anybody in this organization. And I
[2:14:27] don't know if you any of you are
longtime residents of First
[2:14:32] Code. Have you seen a lot of changes
past 20, 30
[2:14:38] years? Right. Huge changes, incredible
changes. Um dad and I and the
[2:14:44] communities we represent, especially on
the front range, like some of them have
[2:14:49] become in many ways unrecognizable,
right? And I want to say for the better
[2:14:55] for the most part those were visionary
leaders right who had their eyes 30 40
[2:15:03] 50 years out instead of having you know
their attention diverted to what's
[2:15:08] happening today even worse what happened
yesterday right and so when you've got
[2:15:14] like big weighty issues of the long far
ahead of you future it can become easy
[2:15:22] to focus instead on the easier stuff
like what happened yesterday, what's
[2:15:27] happening today. But when you take your
time horizons, right, too close, then
[2:15:32] you're encroaching on other people's
right purview and you're not keeping
[2:15:37] your eye where your eyes should be.
Dealings within the chain of command.
[2:15:43] This is Tammy's rule of not jumping up
or down more than one level in the
[2:15:48] organization. Uh and so here's the rule.
Frontline employees should not jump up
[2:15:54] more than one level, right? They should
be dealing primarily with their
[2:15:58] supervisors.
Right? On the other side of this, right?
[2:16:03] If you're a governing body member,
likewise, you should not be dealing with
[2:16:10] frontline employees. You should be
dealing with your own direct
[2:16:15] report. That make sense?
Does that seem doable?
[2:16:22] Yeah. Good. Because I I've seen this
cause a lot of chaos within
[2:16:26] organizations both ways, right? Both
ways. I've seen uh employees kind
[2:16:33] of say to an elected official, "Hey,
right, I voted for you. I've got a
[2:16:39] problem with my supervisor. What are you
going to do about it?"
[2:16:44] Right? That's going to happen. You can't
stop it. It's really in your response
[2:16:50] where you know things can go south or
not go south. And I will mention in this
[2:16:55] regard that Colorado has had some recent
laws put into place
[2:17:02] whereby frontline employees actually do
have protected rights in terms of being
[2:17:08] able to contact elected officials,
right? So they do have that one-way
[2:17:13] ability, right, to try to pull you in.
So again, your response then becomes
[2:17:20] super super critical because just
because they have that right doesn't
[2:17:24] mean you have to say okay I'll carry
your water right all the way up if I
[2:17:28] have to right you can say thanks for
letting me know right I'll take it
[2:17:33] to right and let him know what's going
on but these state laws really make it
[2:17:41] more important then for for you guys
then to have the right response
[2:17:47] Frisco on this issue has a more detailed
charter provision than most. Thank you
[2:17:52] to wise
doctors. A lot of them only contain a
[2:17:56] sentence. We have a whole
paragraph titled relationship of council
[2:18:00] to administrative service. So I won't
take any more of your time, but I
[2:18:04] recommend it to your reading. It's it's
one of the more strongly worded ones.
[2:18:09] Good. Yeah. Then no redundancy. you
know, when you look at the
[2:18:13] administrative side of the organization,
um there's a I don't want to call it
[2:18:20] redundancy, it's not quite the right
word, but there's an ability, right,
[2:18:23] when there's a vacancy, when people are
out out for an extended period, right,
[2:18:28] whatever, that people can cover for each
other, right? It's one of the great
[2:18:32] things about having an organization,
right? You can have one person out and
[2:18:36] the rest will pitch in, right, and make
sure that the work continues to be done.
[2:18:42] But let's say at the level of the
council
[2:18:46] um you know a couple of you or more than
a couple of you had your attention
[2:18:50] diverted away from the big picture high
altitude priorities of the organization
[2:18:56] and you got pulled into what's happening
today or what happened yesterday. Is
[2:19:02] there the rest of the council or other
people who are going to be able to say,
[2:19:06] "Okay, well, they're out for the count.
We'll just pitch in for now while their
[2:19:10] attention is diverted." No, because
there is no redundancy at your level.
[2:19:15] So, there's no ability for anybody else
to be able to say, "Okay, well, we'll
[2:19:20] pitch in and uncover for that person
while their attention is diverted."
[2:19:26] So this is an area that I think is
related to legislative versus
[2:19:32] administrative and then you know your
role versus personnel matters, right? Um
[2:19:38] and this is where I think I
mentioned your charter. There you go.
[2:19:44] There it is. I love this charter
provision. Right. It you're right. It's
[2:19:49] a whole paragraph. The whole paragraph.
It's not the typical sentence. Agreed.
[2:19:53] Yeah. So except for the purpose of
inquiry, the council, each member, the
[2:19:58] mayor and each council committee shall
deal with the administrative service
[2:20:04] solely through the town manager, right?
And um no elected official shall give
[2:20:11] orders to any employee of the town,
right? Publicly or privately. Um now we
[2:20:18] do have the except for purposes of
inquiry right to say uh each member
[2:20:25] shall deal with the town manager solely
through the mayor. Um and so there's
[2:20:30] this sort of inquiry exception, right?
But I'll just say this about inquiries
[2:20:37] from council members.
Um, I don't know if you think of
[2:20:42] yourselves this way, but at this point
once you took the oath of office, you
[2:20:48] became the center of the municipal
universe. I'm not exaggerating, am
[2:20:54] I? Right. You are the center of the
municipal universe and the eyes are on
[2:21:01] you. Right? They're looking at the
questions you ask. They're looking at
[2:21:05] whether you're smiling or you have a
frowny face on, right, when they're
[2:21:09] talking. Um, and they're listening to
the questions that you may be asking for
[2:21:15] purposes of inquiry, right? And you may
be saying, I just wanted to ask the
[2:21:20] question for my clarification. So, I
picked up the phone and called. But what
[2:21:25] the other person may be hearing at the
other end of the line is how high do I
[2:21:31] jump? Right? because you are the center
of the municipal universe. Uh and so
[2:21:36] they're trying to read into right
everything you say, do uh your facial
[2:21:42] expressions because you have that
importance uh within the community. And
[2:21:47] so I I do think even um using this
inquiry exception has to be done with
[2:21:54] great caution in a private or a public
context. So it's very it's very similar
[2:22:02] to being the commander of a military
unit or being a high ranking officer.
[2:22:07] When you walk in and talk to a group of
soldiers, I've had a little bit of
[2:22:12] experience with this. They think you're
giving direction all the
[2:22:17] time. And so um it's something that we
talk about with the staff. We say a
[2:22:24] single council member never is giving
direction on a matter. If we need
[2:22:29] direction on a matter, we take it back
and get direction. Um, doesn't mean you
[2:22:36] don't have preferences and things that
you want to see happen or not happen as
[2:22:40] the case may be, but we talk about that
so that people are reminded when they
[2:22:46] talk to you that it's not specific
direction.
[2:22:51] Yeah, good analogy, Tom. Yeah. And so
that makes it sometimes a lonely job, I
[2:22:56] think, right? Because you have to be
real careful about not just the
[2:23:00] realities, but the the appearance of the
ways in which communicate with other
[2:23:06] human beings within the organization. So
[2:23:12] um yeah, so your question for
clarification could be an order or
[2:23:17] instruction from the receiving end. So,
you know, it sounds like you guys have
[2:23:22] talked about this issue and that you
have established the process and of
[2:23:26] course try to provide some guidance. So,
you know, when in
[2:23:30] doubt, it might tell him, right? He'll
get the answer that you need. I think
[2:23:34] that's always the most comfortable way
of doing it. Um, and of course, there
[2:23:38] are times when you literally are a
citizen, right? Wanting to know
[2:23:43] something that you need as a citizen.
Uh, and so I'm not saying you can't even
[2:23:48] do that, but still once you put that
council member hat on, it is on for the
[2:23:53] duration. So you have to be careful even
when you're when you think you're just
[2:23:58] asking as a
citizen. You're not seen as a citizen
[2:24:05] or speaking with one voice I think is
kind of related to that. Have you guys
[2:24:11] uh been in the situation yet where uh
the vote was 43 and you were a part of
[2:24:16] the three, you know, six to one?
Yeah, it happens and it's
[2:24:25] painful. But the worst thing you can do
then as sort of the the defenders in any
[2:24:31] given decision is to say, "Well, that's
not my decision, right? It is the
[2:24:36] decision of the body and I will respect
it even though I didn't vote for it
[2:24:42] because at some other time I will be
part of the majority and I would expect
[2:24:48] the same kind of respect from those that
voted on the other side from me. Right?
[2:24:53] So speaking with one voice very very
important. Um using your direct reports
[2:24:59] effectively as a resource and then
speaking in terms of we not I. I don't
[2:25:04] sense this as an issue in Bristol, but
uh certainly if you were to model
[2:25:09] yourselves after other levels of
government,
[2:25:16] be better modeling opportunities
available.
[2:25:19] But municipal officials currently are
the grown-ups in the room. Okay. So
[2:25:26] thank you very much for being the room
in the room and modeling right how to
[2:25:32] work with each other how to communicate
with each other and one of those
[2:25:36] modeling behaviors is speaking in terms
of and not I right even before you know
[2:25:43] these times of turmoil I think it was
very frequent to see right
[2:25:49] individual be it commissioners or state
legislators and certainly at the federal
[2:25:55] level They're all I right. I I I um and
I kind of feel like that's one of the
[2:26:02] natural consequences of partisan
government. And I'm not saying partisan
[2:26:08] government is bad at all. There's a
place for partisan government, but it is
[2:26:13] not municipal government, right?
Municipal government is nonpartisan. And
[2:26:17] so, you know, speaking in terms of we
and not I is very very important as is
[2:26:24] your responsibility to try and sort out
and reconcile differences as opposed to
[2:26:30] standing
ones and committing to honoring, you
[2:26:34] know, the priorities and the agenda of
the council as a
[2:26:38] whole. Does that make
sense? All right. So many of these
[2:26:45] topics can be explored in greater
detail. Uh Sam Wid or I are always happy
[2:26:50] to to come back for for training on any
of them and I hope you'll take a look at
[2:26:54] our our website and peruse the
publication.
[2:27:00] Okay. Thank you all so much. Thank
[2:27:08] you. Some time for a break.
[2:27:21] Yes, break.
[2:27:26] Good call. Yeah, you're doing great.
[2:38:53] So, perfect.
Okay, I'm going to email them right now.
[2:39:54] What's that?
[2:40:05] Oh
[2:40:08] yeah.
So, let's go around the next
[2:40:20] [Laughter]
[2:40:26] That truly means there's nothing.
[2:40:36] It's a great movie.
[2:40:45] It was very good.
[2:40:50] It probably makes it look a lot more
interesting than it actually
[2:40:55] is, but there's
[2:41:19] definitely trying to believe it
that he was only 80 80% of those are
[2:41:25] living and actually get to participate
because you've got to be under 80
[2:41:31] you have to be
under 80 I think it's under be over 80
[2:41:36] at any
rate believe of the voting membership
[2:41:40] appointed like 80% or
something one would think
[2:41:47] church in
people.
[2:41:53] Well, that's where the that's where the
politics
[2:41:58] hopefully get a
little go back to Dan Brown, please.
[2:42:18] Thank you for canceling
that so quickly. Thank you for your
[2:42:23] quick response.
[2:42:28] We're only talking here everyone. This
is a secret
[2:42:32] secret
[2:42:40] email. Alex is on.
Okay, good. How do we make her a
[2:42:46] presenter? Make her bigger. Make her
bigger and make her a presenter. And
[2:42:52] yeah, can you give me sharing request or
sharing share screen? And hello
[2:42:57] everyone. Great to see you. Hello.
[2:43:02] Uh everyone um as we as Stacy gets
everything prepped, this is the
[2:43:08] discussion of the 95% comprehensive plan
review. Um, Chris Vald is of course
[2:43:14] Bumies or
Belz. Whatever. I don't want to be doing
[2:43:19] an oil spill.
[2:43:24] Of course, our town planner will and we
also have a presentation.
[2:43:29] Take it away. All right. Well, thank you
for your time tonight, town council. We
[2:43:34] are so excited to present the 95% draft.
It's really quick work session tonight
[2:43:40] and this is kind of like your last
chance before we do the adoption hearing
[2:43:44] on May 13th. Put any last tweaks into
it. Um in the staff report you can see
[2:43:49] we I believe we addressed all the
comments from the 80% draft from the
[2:43:54] town council. So um we're just super
excited to present this plan to you. I'm
[2:43:59] really excited about the future of
Frisco. So Allison, I'm gonna let you
[2:44:03] take it away. Oh, let me introduce her.
Allison faculty with the um design
[2:44:09] workshop and then okay I lost Alex but
Alex was on there also part of the team
[2:44:14] from design workshop so take it away all
great well thank you um it's so great to
[2:44:21] be here with all of you um and really
looking forward to hearing some comments
[2:44:25] and feedback um we have a short amount
of time so I'm going to try and move
[2:44:29] this um quickly to allow for you all to
have a little bit of time for discussion
[2:44:35] So, I've got about 20 minutes of
presentation here and we know that
[2:44:39] you've seen and been extensively
involved in this process and so we may
[2:44:43] go through this pretty quickly. Um, but
please just flag if there's anything you
[2:44:48] want us to cover in more detail or write
down any questions and we're happy to
[2:44:52] address those at the
end. So, as you may know, we have a deep
[2:44:57] bench of consultants supporting this
project. Um, Jessica has been PIC. She's
[2:45:02] not able to be here tonight. she is on
an airplane. Um, but we've also worked
[2:45:06] with uh Tool Transportation and Planning
um and Spirit Environmental um and then
[2:45:12] with our in-house strategic services
team to really round out um the
[2:45:17] information that's ultimately in this
plan. Um as you know, comprehensive
[2:45:22] plans are by nature comprehensive. They
look a lot at land use, but also all the
[2:45:27] other elements of how the town works and
really thinking about how this is a
[2:45:31] place, Frisco is a place to live, work,
and play altogether. Um, we're really
[2:45:36] excited. This plan's forward thinking
and it's, I think, really thoughtfully
[2:45:40] addressing growth and development for
the future of Frisco in a way that's
[2:45:44] really just genuine to your community.
Um, we also want to make sure that we
[2:45:49] check all the boxes and make sure that
it meets state requirements. Um, we
[2:45:53] really wanted to make sure that this has
realistic goals that can be tracked. I
[2:45:57] hope you can see that in this plan. But
really at the heart of it, this is the
[2:46:02] community's plans. So much engagement
really informed the outcomes so that it
[2:46:07] can serve as a pl a path forward for
your
[2:46:11] community. Um, so this is just a quick
overview of of the last year. We kicked
[2:46:16] off this process last March. Um, kudos
to the town for a, you know, kind of one
[2:46:21] year of a comprehensive plan. It's a lot
of work and it was a lot of work by the
[2:46:26] town and the community to get to this
point. So, um, thank you to everyone
[2:46:30] who's been part of this process.
Um, and we're just we're so excited to
[2:46:36] be here um, at looking at potential
adoption um, for May of this coming
[2:46:41] year.
Um, and we'd also like to thank all of
[2:46:46] you who've been involved in meetings, in
the working group, and especially staff.
[2:46:50] Um, they have put so much time and
commitment to advancing the plan to get
[2:46:55] here. And so, just huge thank you to all
of you who've reviewed throughout
[2:47:01] different parts of the processes um for
staff and their involvement. And I think
[2:47:05] it really speaks to um the strength of
this plan moving forward.
[2:47:12] So we'll share really briefly project
process and key milestones um through
[2:47:18] where you can reflect it in the plan.
And so the first thing is we know that
[2:47:23] Frisco's done a lot of great work in the
past and this plan intended to build off
[2:47:28] of that to so to ensure alignment we had
a past plans review. This is all
[2:47:34] captured in appendix C um as well um as
just kind of on one summary page within
[2:47:40] the
document. We also know that uh context
[2:47:45] is critical and so we did a robust
existing condition summary. We developed
[2:47:50] four separate memorandum. Those are also
found in the appendencies um in great
[2:47:55] detail highlighting everything from
economic trends and a market profile, an
[2:48:00] ecological assessment, transportation
assessment as well as kind of an overall
[2:48:05] understanding of the physical planning
of the community. And this information
[2:48:09] was really important um to make sure
that we're moving forward from um from a
[2:48:15] solid foundation.
[2:48:18] My favorite part of this project has
been the community engagement. We had so
[2:48:23] many wonderful conversations with
community members. Everything from focus
[2:48:28] groups with over 73 participants to um
popup events outside coffee shops um and
[2:48:35] even attending a middle school football
game. We just we had some really great
[2:48:40] conversations. Um, this section of the
document tries to capture a summary of
[2:48:46] some of those comments as they informed
the outcomes of the plan. And all of the
[2:48:51] different engagement summaries are
captured in the appendex of the document
[2:48:56] as
[2:48:58] well. We also had a wonderful community
working group. Um there were 20
[2:49:05] different local partners and individuals
who really gave their time um to
[2:49:10] represent the community voice and I was
so impressed with their thoughtfulness
[2:49:16] with their engagement and their
understanding of the community to help
[2:49:19] us rightsize goals and strategies to
really meet Frisco as well as help to
[2:49:25] guide us through the process to make
sure that you know this is ultimately
[2:49:29] Frisco's plan. And so, um, just a huge
ex huge extension of gratitude for all
[2:49:36] of the participants who dedicated their
time, um, to this
[2:49:42] process. And as I've mentioned, this
plan is truly Frisco's plan. Um, it's
[2:49:48] been shaped by the community um, and
staff and leadership of this town. And
[2:49:53] as such we have the guiding principles
which really serve as the organization
[2:49:58] of the plan itself um and kind of
outline the strategies in subsequent
[2:50:03] chapters. So these are this is the
town's vision. This is the town's values
[2:50:09] and and that's really been a driving
force within this document.
[2:50:14] Um during our engagement events, we
focused on understanding different ways
[2:50:18] that Frisco could address growth in the
future um through scenario planning. And
[2:50:24] each of these one um ideas you see on
the screen had certain tradeoffs and we
[2:50:29] had some really good conversations to
gauge what's most important for the
[2:50:33] community. This was really critical
because it's ultimately what informed
[2:50:37] the future land use map and combined
kind of different pieces of each of
[2:50:42] these three plans into the document um
that you see in front of
[2:50:46] you. So here's that future land use map.
Um I won't spend too much time here, but
[2:50:52] as you all know, a future land use map
is not zoning, but it's a tool for how
[2:50:56] to think about the future. And so this
map really incorporates some of your
[2:51:00] past planning while also thinking ahead
um to where some moderate changes might
[2:51:07] be able to incorporate um more of a
sense of place and more opportunities
[2:51:12] for housing in the community. Um and
many of those other values you saw on
[2:51:16] the past screen. And so some of those
things are like extending Main Street
[2:51:21] area to include West Main as well as
creating Summit Boulevard as its own
[2:51:26] district. and and that really came from
all of you where we heard that different
[2:51:30] parts of Frisco have different needs and
we want to make sure that we can capture
[2:51:36] the different needs of development in
those areas as well. Um the land use
[2:51:41] classifications support this map and
they're really more detailed to help
[2:51:46] guide some of the specific how-tos
um for development in each of these uh
[2:51:51] classifications that you see on the left
side of your screen.
[2:51:55] Um, we gave some pretty robust land use
classifications
[2:52:00] um that dig a little bit deeper into
what some of those uses might look like,
[2:52:05] how to think about connectivity within
each of these areas, how to consider
[2:52:09] parks and open space, as well as
circling back to economy,
[2:52:13] sustainability, and equity. So, making
sure that each one of these areas thinks
[2:52:17] about those different core values um in
a meaningful way.
[2:52:24] We also have a three-mile plan which is
a requirement of a comprehensive plan
[2:52:29] and much of Frisco is within this um uh
US Forest Service area and has kind of
[2:52:37] limited expansion geography especially
with steep hillsides and with Lake
[2:52:42] Dylan. But the three mile plan is kind
of this comprehensive look and includes
[2:52:46] information about what some adjacent
planning areas might be. Um and then
[2:52:51] staff uh will provide subsequent
information on this plan in a future
[2:52:55] appendex to the document. Um but this
captures the the state requirement and
[2:53:00] and talks about some of the
considerations for areas outside the
[2:53:04] physical boundary of
[2:53:07] FISO. Ah and then goals and strategies.
This is really kind of the meat of the
[2:53:12] document. This is includes programs,
policies, projects. really kind of
[2:53:18] thinking about the how do you achieve
this moving forward. Um, and this is
[2:53:24] meant to help guide uh achieving that
the flume that I just shared as well as
[2:53:30] providing more of a to-do list that will
help the town in
[2:53:37] implementation. And so, you know, this
um this just kind of shows that we have
[2:53:42] really robustly vetted this plan through
the process. Um, we had a 50% draft that
[2:53:49] was reviewed by town. We had a formatted
80% draft that was reviewed by many of
[2:53:54] you as well as the working group. Um,
and we've incorporated community
[2:53:59] comments from an open comment period
that had an open survey. All of that has
[2:54:04] been incorporated into this 95% draft
that you see in front of you today. Um,
[2:54:10] we'll pick up a final round of comments
to make that a 100% plan based on any
[2:54:16] conversations that we hear tonight as
well as some conversations that we heard
[2:54:20] from planning commission as
well. Um, and so we'll be looking we
[2:54:26] should change the date here today. Um,
we'll be looking for plan adoption um in
[2:54:30] on May 13th during your um, uh, formal
meeting. So, uh, we look forward to
[2:54:38] seeing you all then. We will be there um
to to answer any questions and talk
[2:54:43] through that that final 100%
draft. With that, um, that leads us to
[2:54:50] kind of this last piece of the draft
discussion. Um, so this draft document,
[2:54:58] um, incorporates I'm going to share a
little bit on future land use and a
[2:55:01] little bit on implementation. Those are
the two pieces that um have changed a
[2:55:06] little bit since that 80% draft that you
reviewed. Um so once again that future
[2:55:12] land use map really supporting as a tool
for decision making and aligning future
[2:55:17] development with um where the town hopes
to grow. So this can really be a tool
[2:55:22] when you see different applications come
through to kind of guide that check and
[2:55:27] balance of does this line up with our
future. As I mentioned, we have the
[2:55:33] future land use classifications which
details out all of those colors on the
[2:55:38] map um through character and design
criteria. And then something that we
[2:55:44] added between the 80% and 95% draft was
um a discussion around sub area
[2:55:50] opportunities. We heard that there's
certain differences in area especially
[2:55:56] like along west Maine. Rather than
adding sub area classifications,
[2:56:01] uh we put into the document the
opportunities which really highlights a
[2:56:05] more detailed explanation of design and
planning concepts in these specific
[2:56:12] locations. And finally, uh the
implementation matrix uh is intended to
[2:56:17] serve as a really easy to navigate
resource. Um, once again, big uh big
[2:56:23] thank you to Chris and Katie and town
staff who worked through this list to
[2:56:28] make sure that it's in alignment with a
lot of the other elements um of town
[2:56:33] planning. And so this implementation
matrix includes the some specific
[2:56:39] priority actions that fall under each of
the goals. It highlights um who can take
[2:56:45] the lead or partner. Um the LMH stands
for low, medium, high. What's the
[2:56:51] priority and the potential resources
needed? Um and then we've identified
[2:56:57] areas of alignment. So those icons you
see all the way um to the far right
[2:57:02] indicate there might be some crossover
or alignment with other values
[2:57:08] uh in this plan. You know, it is
comprehensive and these things are often
[2:57:15] interconnected. And so that's that. Um
what as I said I'm hoping to keep a
[2:57:20] pretty quick high overview to allow you
to provide your thoughts with us and and
[2:57:25] share any discussion points um while we
have your time. So any questions?
[2:57:36] I know you and I have been through it
enough I think. Um guys, any uh
[2:57:42] questions right now on that?
[2:57:48] [Music]
I do want to add the with um attachment
[2:57:53] C, what staff decided to do was take the
approved CIP and compare it to the goals
[2:58:00] and policies in the comprehensive plan.
And so some of the changes that we're
[2:58:05] still kind of massaging through is to
make sure if something is a priority and
[2:58:10] funded and it's not mentioned in the
comprehensive plan, we're going to get
[2:58:13] it in there before the 100% draft or if
there's something that's in the
[2:58:18] comprehensive plan unfunded. We don't
see it happening in the next 10 years.
[2:58:22] We're actually going to modify that
language to say if funding becomes
[2:58:26] available because we want it in the
comprehensive plan in case a grant
[2:58:29] opportunity comes up, something like
that. and we really want to make sure
[2:58:32] that something's already funded through
the CIP that we have that support in the
[2:58:37] comprehensive plan and other documents.
Great example of that is the the uh
[2:58:43] trail connection
uh underneath the highway perhaps at 10
[2:58:47] Mile Creek. You know, it is not
something we're going to fund ourselves,
[2:58:51] right? It's going to be an opportunity.
Melan C dot gives us an opportunity
[2:59:02] So, we're really hoping the plan doesn't
just sit on a shelf and collect dust for
[2:59:06] the next five years. We really want this
to be implementable and we work through
[2:59:11] it when we're doing development with you
and Ryan Rob or Zach and Robin,
[2:59:17] sorry, our work did go into that. I'm
sure you read it for the second.
[2:59:27] What happens to it after adoption
besides that we use it obviously does
[2:59:33] does it get reviewed by a state agency
in any way? So we do have a grant from
[2:59:38] Dola and what we will do is send the
draft or the final plan to them so that
[2:59:43] we meet the grant requirements but other
than that it'll kind of be up on our
[2:59:48] website. We'll use it hopefully. I know
Allison said she's really interested in
[2:59:53] entering it for um planning awards. So
we shall see what happens with that. So
[2:59:59] hopefully it can be a guiding light for
others. So all the partners that teamed
[3:00:04] up with staff, are they kind of out of
the picture now? They still make
[3:00:08] comments occasionally or Yes, I'm still
getting emails from some of the working
[3:00:12] group, but it's not so much like change
this in the plan now. It's more of like
[3:00:16] when is it going to get adopted? When
can you share it out? When can I get it?
[3:00:19] Yeah,
that's great. And then from developers,
[3:00:23] they're like when am I going to be
subject to this? When am I
[3:00:27] Yeah.
[3:00:31] Okay, that's it. Yeah, thank you for the
question. I'm really impressed with all
[3:00:36] of it. Like I said before, like it's
very digestible, really understandable
[3:00:41] for someone just walking into this now
and all the work you guys have put into
[3:00:47] it. Thank you.
It's quite the not quite the tone.
[3:00:54] It's mostly appendix but yeah think it
might be
[3:01:01] actually the but it's 100% we'll make
sure copy if you're
[3:01:11] happy and thank you for the presentation
and again we're going to see this on May
[3:01:17] 13th on maybe a little business card
that you would have that correct
[3:01:23] Thank you all. Okay. Well, thank you
all. Um I just want everybody it's been
[3:01:29] such a pleasure working with you and I'm
looking forward to seeing you on May
[3:01:32] 13th.
Absolutely.
[3:01:37] Thanks, Alison. Thanks, Alex.
Thank you.
[3:01:45] Okay, I believe that is it for the Oh,
sorry. It's okay. It's easily It's the
[3:01:52] open It's the open records act.
[3:01:57] Yeah. So, next up we uh we do have a
little more training from open records
[3:02:03] training for
just be warned, we're going to be done
[3:02:06] early. I do not have amendments on this.
[3:02:14] So
[3:02:17] give an opportunity to ask any followup
questions you may have had. You've heard
[3:02:23] about decision making twice now and two
meetings and trying to draw that
[3:02:29] distinction and the distinction between
the appropriate
[3:02:35] bas you have on any of that now
later any other time. I know
[3:02:41] that presentations mine and Tammy tend
to be similar and overlapping and
[3:02:45] frankly I think that's good. I think a
lot of this stuff is it takes a while to
[3:02:50] sink in and sort of internalize it and
be able to make better decisions on the
[3:02:57] fly about what you're dealing
with. Um so please if you have any I'm
[3:03:03] happy to do that. Um, this meeting, this
presentation I have on the Open Records
[3:03:09] Act, um, while important and something
that you should all be aware of, it's
[3:03:16] really not anything that you're going to
have to deal
[3:03:19] with on any kind of regular basis. Maybe
never at all, right? It's something you
[3:03:23] should be aware of, but it's not going
to come into play in your decision-
[3:03:27] making. um like like the open meetings
act and its limitations like the ethics
[3:03:32] code and its limitations like quasi
judicial decision-m this just kind of
[3:03:36] happens and is won't require you to make
any decisions but is something you
[3:03:41] should be aware of um let's start with
just some general definitions in big
[3:03:48] picture um the act describes public
records um and and declares them to be
[3:03:54] open for inspection at all reasonable
times it it defines A public record very
[3:03:59] broadly as all writings made, maintained
or kept by the state, any agency,
[3:04:06] institution or political subdivision of
the state that are and quote for use in
[3:04:11] the exercise of functions required or
authorized by law or administrative rule
[3:04:16] or involving the receipt or expenditure
of public funds. But if you break that
[3:04:20] down just to the part that might be
pertinent to you and writings that you
[3:04:24] might make to your constituents, to
council members, to Tom, to whomever,
[3:04:30] right? Is it a writing paid for use in
the exercise of functions authorized by
[3:04:38] law? Your functions authorized by law
are pretty broad, right? You're right
[3:04:42] below the public, right? You can you can
do virtually all functions.
[3:04:47] So just about anything that that you're
writing about that concerns the town or
[3:04:53] its business is going to be a writing
made for the using the exercise of the
[3:04:58] function because it's just so darn broad
when we're talking about about your
[3:05:03] writings.
Um individuals request copies of public
[3:05:09] records relating to a particular subject
matter. There is a substantial
[3:05:12] likelihood that some public records
would need to be disclosed. There are
[3:05:16] exceptions to disclosure under the act
and we're going to talk about that right
[3:05:19] now. But the broad general rule is for
disclosure and the narrow rules are the
[3:05:26] exceptions to disclosure. Um that's
something else I wanted to touch upon
[3:05:30] just briefly. Most people envision the
open records act or the federal freedom
[3:05:36] of information act right the federal
correlary as being all about hand over
[3:05:41] the documents. I mean just just a big
long discussion of hand over the
[3:05:46] documents and that's really not what
it's about open the the freedom of
[3:05:50] information act and the state correlated
their open records act are really a
[3:05:55] thing and like you know you'll call our
discussion of open meetings right about
[3:06:01] the general policy beingness of a
meeting but the exceptions being um for
[3:06:07] executive sessions and things that there
really is a public interest in keeping
[3:06:11] private
Here the open records act now goes to
[3:06:15] the next step of you know some things
there is a public interest in keeping
[3:06:20] private and not disclosing and some
things there are private interests in
[3:06:26] not having the government disclose right
we the government obtains lots of
[3:06:30] private information about people that
that could be disclosed right upon a
[3:06:35] request unless there are exceptions that
would allow us to hold it back. So, so
[3:06:39] here you're you're dealing with both
things the government may need to
[3:06:44] temporarily keep confidential
um excuse me or permanently depending on
[3:06:51] on some of the some of the exceptions.
[Music]
[3:06:56] Um and not and not and it is not just
dealing with its own interest as I said
[3:07:01] the governmental interest in keeping
something quiet for the time being but
[3:07:04] the private interests in the information
that that government tends to have. So
[3:07:09] with that, I want to give you the first
big broad general exception to the
[3:07:14] records act and that is criminal justice
records. Anything held down in the
[3:07:18] police department um may well be
disclosable, but that's under the
[3:07:23] criminal justice records act provisions,
right? It's separate and distinct from
[3:07:27] the open records act because those are
very separate and distinct
[3:07:31] considerations as to when we let police
investigatory records go for obvious
[3:07:36] reasons, right? Um, you could get open
records requests that would ask you to
[3:07:41] reveal, you know, the records that
provide evidence of the current status
[3:07:45] of investigation. Investigation, right?
You could, you know, just just all kinds
[3:07:49] of things that need to be um kept
confidential during investigatory phases
[3:07:55] that would eventually be revealed at
trial and the like. So, so that's the
[3:07:58] first huge carve out is is none of what
I'm going to say today applies to
[3:08:02] criminal justice records. It's a whole
separate act with a bunch of different
[3:08:05] considerations and
definitions. Privileged information,
[3:08:10] that's primarily privileged
communications, attorney client
[3:08:15] communications. Whether I'm writing to
Tom, I'm writing to the council, I'm
[3:08:18] writing to any client representative.
While the council could decide it wanted
[3:08:23] to release that information, it wouldn't
be released without the council's
[3:08:27] approval because it's privileged and it
is an exception to public records that
[3:08:32] need to be disclosed. There's
also this this
[3:08:37] amorphous defined mostly by Kate's law
privilege called the deliberative
[3:08:42] process
privilege. Kind of like the attorney
[3:08:46] client. The idea of the attorney client
privilege is you want clients to be able
[3:08:51] to
be open and honest completely, you know,
[3:08:57] disclosing any and all relevant
information. You want the attorneys to
[3:09:00] be able to make the same kind of
communications to their clients without
[3:09:03] fear that what what we're saying here is
going to go out into the public, right?
[3:09:06] So we don't so we don't sort of
self-limit communications whether from
[3:09:10] the clients or the attorney's
perspective. The same thing is true
[3:09:13] under the delivery process privilege.
This privilege is based upon the ground
[3:09:18] I'm quoting here that quote public
disclosure of certain communications
[3:09:21] would deter the open exchange of
opinions and recommendations between
[3:09:25] governmental officials such as between
Tom yourself or something that you
[3:09:29] wanted to communicate with just I keep
using as an example because you're one
[3:09:33] of you're probably their main point of
written contact other than perhaps
[3:09:37] between each other. So the the point of
this is it is intended to protect the
[3:09:43] government's decision-making process,
its consultive function and the quality
[3:09:47] of decisions in order to withhold
disclosure of any document under this
[3:09:51] deliberative
process privilege. The records custodian
[3:09:57] Stacy over there must find and determine
that the material is so candid or
[3:10:01] personal that public disclosure is
likely to stifle honest and frank
[3:10:05] discussion within the government. So
it's the same kind of thing, right? You
[3:10:08] want you want the government to be able
to tell its attorney anything and vice
[3:10:12] versa. And with respect to some
sensitive things, you also want to keep
[3:10:16] lines of communication open without fear
that every single thing I'm willing to
[3:10:20] say, right? But again, there's got to be
a finding that the material is so candid
[3:10:25] or personal that public disclosure is
likely to stifle honest and frank
[3:10:28] discussion within the
department. I have a hard time coming up
[3:10:32] with examples, but but I will. Has that
one been adjudicated?
[3:10:36] We don't have we only have the
definition from one or two cases.
[3:10:42] Gotcha. What it
means? Let me give you an
[3:10:47] example. Something I think would
probably qualify.
[3:10:51] Let's say the town was going to
consider adopting
[3:10:57] regulations to concerning
um or or to put more detail on on state
[3:11:04] statutes concerning disclosure of the
residences of people who have been um
[3:11:10] convicted of of sexually oriented
crimes. Okay.
[3:11:16] um let's say as a council
member you've had personal experience in
[3:11:20] that area and I don't know whether it's
an experience about you your
[3:11:24] family siblings whatever it may
be and I could I could see
[3:11:30] communications right between each other
or a council member to the manager
[3:11:36] discussing the policy of this revealing
that information saying here you know
[3:11:40] this is kind of personal to me because
and because of this I believe that we
[3:11:44] ought to adopt unless it's a regular I
think that would fit your deliberative
[3:11:47] process, right? We don't want to stifle
that kind of communication and and
[3:11:52] releasing it would stifle it. That was a
something you said in private that was
[3:11:57] part of your deliberative process. So I
I struggled to come up with examples,
[3:12:01] but I think that's a a good one.
something something where the
[3:12:04] legislature legislator for expressing
something personal relevant to the
[3:12:09] legislative process that they that they
wouldn't that you know that they
[3:12:13] wouldn't want exposed publicly and you
know they probably wouldn't have made
[3:12:16] that communication had they knew it. So
there's your deliberative process
[3:12:21] privilege such such as it is
[3:12:26] um oh certain correspondence of elected
officials. So you can imagine, right, a
[3:12:33] letter constituent to their their
council member or one of their council
[3:12:39] members discussing whatever
issue that letter is open to disclosure
[3:12:45] unless it expressly says or implies by
its terms that the constituent would not
[3:12:51] want the letter revealed. In that case,
we can withhold it as under the
[3:12:57] exception for what it's called circuit
correspondence of elected officials. So
[3:13:01] if the letter says, hey, please don't
tell anybody that I know of this to you
[3:13:06] or or you can imply
it can withhold that disclosure
[3:13:12] mandatory. So as I said that the the act
is really this balancing act between um
[3:13:19] disclosure and and protection both of
things that should remain confidential
[3:13:24] with the government or private interest
um information about individuals that
[3:13:29] the government is
holding. So the act is broken into three
[3:13:33] parts. Here are the documents you must
disclose which is very broad as we
[3:13:37] discussed. Here's a set of documents
that you may or may not disclose
[3:13:41] depending on the public interest
involved in the matter. And then
[3:13:45] finally, there's a list of mandatory um
non-disclosure requirement. So here you
[3:13:51] really start to get into personal
interests of the individuals about whom
[3:13:56] the record speaks. So, you know, some of
this is quite quite intuitive. Medical,
[3:14:03] mental health, sociological, and
scholastic achievement data around
[3:14:06] individual persons, right? We don't get
a lot of that. School districts
[3:14:11] do ton.
Um, personnel files. This is really an
[3:14:18] interesting one that again is
counterintuitive. Here the act is really
[3:14:24] forming the balancing of letting the
world know um about the people who serve
[3:14:31] the public and letting those individuals
have some measure of privacy. So you
[3:14:37] would think well if it's in the
personnel file we just don't have to
[3:14:40] disclose it. And actually that's not
true because the act defines personnel
[3:14:44] files very
narrowly.
[3:14:48] [Music]
So for instance, we must disclose
[3:14:54] overall performance
evaluations but not individual ratings
[3:14:59] on on individual items, right? It it
keeps making these we must um we must
[3:15:05] disclose how much money you
make but not your address.
[3:15:11] So it really is the balancing act of
what things are really personnel files
[3:15:16] meant to protect the the individual's
personal interest and what and in what
[3:15:20] part of those files the public interest
prevail the public's right to know how
[3:15:25] it's public employees perform what
they're being paid etc. Um another
[3:15:31] mandatory non-disclosure trade secrets
privilege information confidential
[3:15:35] commercial financial geological or
geophysical data finished furnished by
[3:15:40] or obtaining from any
person a rarely used exception that
[3:15:48] um I'll give you a good I'll give you
the one good example I'm aware of
[3:15:52] there's a municipality in the state that
was his
[3:15:58] will continue to negot negotiate with
potential suitors to create a municipal
[3:16:03] geothermal power system, geothermal heat
system in receiving proposals to their
[3:16:10] RFP. You know, this is kind of cutting
edge technology geothermal and different
[3:16:14] folks are doing it different ways. And
so when they have come in to pitch the
[3:16:20] municipality to say, "Here's what we do.
Here's why we're better. Here's our
[3:16:23] technique." Blah, blah, blah. Um, a lot
of that stuff had to be withheld as as
[3:16:28] trade secrets.
Um, those private parties always also
[3:16:33] want the deal that you just made with
them to be secret as well. And you
[3:16:36] always say, "No, that's you know, your
your public deal with the public entity
[3:16:39] is not one of your trade secrets. I
understand you don't want your
[3:16:42] competitors to know, but so again, the
line between the private interest of the
[3:16:47] commercial entity and the public's right
to know." Um here's an interesting got
[3:16:52] one that got added um in more recent
years. Mandatory non-disclosure names,
[3:16:57] addresses, telephone numbers and
personal financial information of past
[3:17:00] or present users of public utilities,
public facilities, recreational or
[3:17:06] cultural services that are owned and
operated by state, its agencies,
[3:17:09] institution or political
subdivisions. Reason for that is
[3:17:13] municipalities who are regularly getting
requests. Please give me the name uh all
[3:17:19] the records you have on any every
individual to whom you have sold an
[3:17:23] annual pass to your recreation
center because they want a mailing list
[3:17:29] for equipment sales or what you know
they just they're just trying to mine
[3:17:33] public information. So they they create
this exception was very broad right
[3:17:38] names addresses telephone numbers users
of utilities public facilities
[3:17:42] recreational
services to to
[3:17:48] records of sexual harassment complaints
and
[3:17:51] investigations. That's a very broad
brush at this. And as a result
[3:17:57] of disputes in recent years down under
the Golden Dome and some claims of
[3:18:01] sexual harassment, the legislature has
seen fit to create enough exceptions to
[3:18:07] claim records of sexual harassment
complaints get released and when they
[3:18:10] don't. a little outside the scope of
this memo, but suffice to say that's one
[3:18:14] of those areas
[3:18:18] where privacy interests not to counter
that public know.
[3:18:25] Um, electronic
mail, we touched on this just briefly,
[3:18:31] but strongly recommend that you don't
use your private email accounts to
[3:18:38] conduct public business. And that means
no public is any record made for the
[3:18:43] purpose of exercise of functions
authorized by
[3:18:47] law for you to talk about the town or
anything you're doing for the town or
[3:18:50] anything the town's doing for you or
anybody else without it meeting that
[3:18:54] definition. Um, not only that over the
email, but as I say, the likelihood is
[3:18:59] when when these cases come to civil
litigation, what you get is for
[3:19:03] individuals to bring their laptop down
to court and hand them over and they'll
[3:19:08] get them back one day. It went on, you
may remember 10 years ago, right? Went
[3:19:13] on in a there was a big case in Summit
County, the claiming of Summit County
[3:19:18] government that resulted in a lot of
people being without their laptops for a
[3:19:21] brief period of time. how forensic
scientist goes in and the area that none
[3:19:27] of us can get to, but they can and find
all the the deleted emails. Um,
[3:19:43] the old mayor,
Miles Porter,
[3:19:48] no, this was one not involving us. This
was a case. Yeah, this Yeah, we weren't
[3:19:53] involved in this case. It was just
Summit County. I just remember doing the
[3:19:56] reading on it thinking, "Oh man, it's a
bunch of people who are going to be
[3:19:59] really mad because their phone, what are
you going to do, right? You got to hand
[3:20:03] this to
somebody. Go to the Apple store first
[3:20:08] and get another and download all your
stuff." Can I ask a quick question?
[3:20:11] Sure, please. Um, in reference to the
laptops and private email, you and Tammy
[3:20:16] were talking about earlier also. So
Robin, is that a town laptop or is that
[3:20:21] your person?
So you know me and Zach here because
[3:20:25] we're wise men. We have Apple products
that we are in love with. Now
[3:20:37] you know what I use on my I don't know
if you do I use Apple Mail client. So I
[3:20:43] pull up my mail and it has all my
various email addresses. Yeah. Now I'm
[3:20:49] only doing
town on my town
[3:20:54] email and it's going through
somewhere something I'm sure to do with
[3:20:59] Apple to eventually work through this
client. Do you think that would result
[3:21:06] in
[3:21:12] right or wrong? Right. Right. And in
that practical case, I mean that's the
[3:21:17] reason that I only wherever I'm
accessing my town email, I do do so
[3:21:25] through the browser through the
Microsoft client. I'm always using that
[3:21:30] instead of going to a client doing going
to a a client software online. I have a
[3:21:36] feeling that might be
[3:21:42] true. The
remainder is is really just
[3:21:48] a case study of the Baker Sales case,
county
[3:21:55] clerk was a guy by the name of Tracy
Baker and he had an assistant named Lisa
[3:22:00] Lisa Sale
[Music]
[3:22:04] and the assistant brought a sexual
harassment hostile work base environment
[3:22:11] claim that was that claim was was
learned by the local press and the local
[3:22:18] press made a request for uh any and all
emails between Mr. maker
[3:22:25] sale. Um
the the fight was on about what what was
[3:22:33] the nature of a public record. And you
remember at the beginning of this the
[3:22:39] the definition of a public
record was is all writings made,
[3:22:46] maintained or kept by the state any age
institution subdivision of state that
[3:22:50] are for use in the exercise of functions
required or authorized by law.
[3:22:54] administrative rule or involving the
receipt or expenditure of public funds.
[3:22:59] So, as you might imagine, it's not too
hard to argue that romantic emails
[3:23:05] between Mr. Baker and Miss Sale were not
was not writings made for the use in the
[3:23:11] exercise of functions required or
authorized by law. They were having a
[3:23:14] romantic relationship, right? Had
nothing to do that. But the argument
[3:23:19] that went all the way up to the Supreme
Court was, well, wait a minute. it.
[3:23:23] That's just one problem. The other
problem is or these communications or
[3:23:27] records involved the receipt or
expenditure of public funds. But after
[3:23:31] all, these were public computers on a
public email. So that that Arapjo County
[3:23:37] was was paying for by definition because
they use this equipment. This this
[3:23:43] involved the use or of of exercise
involve the receipt or expenditure of
[3:23:48] public funds. And so this goes all the
way up to the Supreme Court. And the
[3:23:53] Supreme Court holds that indeed they are
not public records because they were not
[3:23:59] made for functions authorized by law.
And neither does the fact
[3:24:04] that public computers were used and
public email system were used
[3:24:10] um mean that that record involves the
expenditure receipt. They say you need
[3:24:14] to read that more literally. Does this
involve the receipt of you know does
[3:24:17] this record involve the receipt? It's
not it's not whether it was on a
[3:24:21] computer system or done in a public
building under under lights and a and a
[3:24:25] climate control system that was paid for
for instance. Um the uh I like this case
[3:24:33] both because it's a really good result
that really explains the difference
[3:24:37] between what's public and what's
private. I also really like really like
[3:24:42] the the quote. After considering the
content of the email messages as
[3:24:47] required by the statute, we conclude
that not all of the email messages that
[3:24:52] issue here have a demonstrable
connection to the performance of other
[3:24:55] functions involving the receipt or
expenditure of public funds. It is
[3:24:59] apparent a large portion of the email
messages instead contain only sexually
[3:25:04] explicit exchanges between the baker and
sale. Based on the content of the
[3:25:08] emails, it is clear they were sent in
furtherance of their personal
[3:25:12] relationship and were not for use in the
performance of public functions of the
[3:25:15] reporters office. These messages
demonstrate very private exchanges that
[3:25:20] convey the quote every thought and
feeling unquote of a public official
[3:25:23] that we sought to safeguard from
disclosure in wick the deliberative
[3:25:27] process. So so intensely personal that
we wouldn't have these communications
[3:25:31] where you know we knew they're going to
be disclosed. my favorite one. The only
[3:25:36] discernable purpose of disclosing the
content of these messages is to shed
[3:25:40] light on the expressive Baker and sales
fluency with sexually explicit
[3:25:44] terminology and to satisfy the period
interests of the press and the
[3:25:49] public. It's just hilarious. Um, so at
any rate, it
[3:25:53] all this is meant to be more in the form
of a friendly reminder. Be aware almost
[3:26:01] anything you're going to write is going
to be a public record.
[3:26:04] There are some exceptions. They are
limited.
[3:26:07] Um could apply but not likely to
instances. And if you're not if if you
[3:26:14] aren't able to sign enough a day that at
the end of the day that says I have only
[3:26:20] ever communicated about town matters on
my through my town email address. The
[3:26:26] likelihood is that you that your email
would be
[3:26:32] examined. And that's what I've got. That
would that mean if
[3:26:37] uh theoretically then I mean if it got
to that point to where would they then
[3:26:42] say well we're not so sure
[3:26:45] you also want to look at your
[3:26:51] Yeah, it's a good question. think that
in the face of an affidavit, the other
[3:26:57] side would have to sh
to the
[3:27:01] contrary because the court was going to
take that affidavit at face value for
[3:27:06] what it is and then expect something
contrary from the other side before
[3:27:10] they're just going to order you. Well,
the other side says they don't believe
[3:27:12] you. Well, why doesn't believe
you? Is there any reason? Are they just
[3:27:17] on a fishing expedition?
So I think if you really didn't and we
[3:27:22] really could provide that up to David I
don't think
[3:27:31] how does that work
with texting if so I didn't get a new
[3:27:39] phone number
so if I'm like texting
[3:27:44] somebody then it's all of my phone
records catch. We're all in catch.
[3:27:53] I mean,
it's, you know, I take that risk because
[3:27:57] I
haven't I haven't separated out that
[3:28:02] stuff. I do all my personal business and
my I mean, email is still a separate
[3:28:07] client, but texting I have decided not
to. I take the risk. I Yeah, I I enjoy
[3:28:15] the protection of the attorney client
privilege and I And I often find myself
[3:28:20] acting out that last sentence, right?
Nonetheless, because I just wouldn't
[3:28:24] want it read. There's there's no such
thing as manager client.
[3:28:34] Yeah.
[3:28:37] get on the
phone. Now, in case it would be
[3:28:42] interesting because you have HIPPA
involved with your professional
[3:28:48] work, too.
I have a different Oh, you do? So, you
[3:28:53] you have to be careful about it. Yeah.
That stuff, too. So, I'm a little less
[3:28:59] conservative
than on the serial meetings. Yeah. The 2
[3:29:04] by twos.
coco it all they want the legislature
[3:29:09] changes the right statute it's not
illegal you know just look at scans all
[3:29:16] they want to me it doesn't even look
that bad I guess that's just my
[3:29:21] perception me I mean I'm trying to think
of situations where because sometimes we
[3:29:27] do that in regards to like when we're uh
starting to uh prepare the budget for
[3:29:33] the council and we have meetings to say
this is where this is what's coming your
[3:29:37] way. We're not seeking a decision like
that. Yeah. We're preparing for it's a
[3:29:43] little different. I just don't know
where you draw line. One official
[3:29:47] meeting with another public official and
talking they want and then rinse and
[3:29:51] repeat.
I I just can't see the courts ever
[3:29:54] coming up with the rules that you can't
do that. It's just not human nature.
[3:29:59] It's too much to ask.
[3:30:06] And and again, I said it several times
in the
[3:30:08] memo, open records um requests are not
always easy
[3:30:14] questions. Please don't hesitate, right?
If you have Absolutely. Please.
[3:30:21] It's it's often a complex analysis and
often Chad well not often but what would
[3:30:26] you say Stacy you and I talk in detail
about 30 to 50% of all of the open
[3:30:31] records you request receive at
[3:30:37] least judgment and knowing what part of
a person file to come out because you
[3:30:42] must release it and others if you can't.
As a county manager, we ran all of our
[3:30:47] open records requests through the
attorney's office just
[3:30:53] because some legal question and it was
just easier to not be scrutinized on it
[3:31:00] from that perspective. And it's always a
fire drill. We have three days. Yeah.
[3:31:03] Unless we can show extenduating
circumstances like our clerk is on
[3:31:08] vacation or our our whoever it is. We
have a finance director getting a budget
[3:31:13] ready and is jammed for two may be. But
then we got to write a letter to July.
[3:31:18] Um there's a bill in the legisure this
this year trying to extend that to five
[3:31:23] days which would be really nice. It's
three
[3:31:28] days. Surely you can wait till the
[3:31:36] United and all records related too.
[3:31:48] So again, always encourage questions on
any of these topics as they arise. I
[3:31:54] know this is all brand new. Thanks.
Um just about the difference between
[3:32:01] well I guess I understand the
differenceial meetings. Y maybe maybe
[3:32:05] some clarification around like at what
point should you stop meeting with
[3:32:11] council members?
[3:32:15] Well at the point at which well at any
time when you're dealing with a quasi
[3:32:20] judicial map
just with that we're sorry. So with that
[3:32:26] it's definitely I mean yeah yeah that is
that that's the definite if it's going
[3:32:30] to be a quasi judicial matter and you
should understand even if the decision
[3:32:34] isn't coming to you for the final
decision quote unquote like our planning
[3:32:39] commission lots of land use um
applications um have their final
[3:32:46] decision made by the planning commission
unless they are appealed to the council.
[3:32:52] And virtually any planning commission
decision is going to be quasi judicial
[3:32:57] and they can all be appealed by any
party in interest in the decision. So
[3:33:01] that means not just the applicant but
any member of the public that
[3:33:06] uh believe it's by writing within 10
days of the decision or any two council
[3:33:12] members can call in and basically the
council creates the appeal. So even
[3:33:17] though you may not be the first decision
maker and you may not ever be a decision
[3:33:22] maker because you are the appellent body
on a lot of those decisions the rules
[3:33:27] apply you're just an appeals court judge
instead of a trial court judge same
[3:33:31] rules and it's on the potential as you
noted that it might
[3:33:36] not actually
[3:33:45] in terms of
Legislative decision. Okay, legislative.
[3:33:49] You talk all you want to, whenever you
want, whenever you want, so long as
[3:33:53] you're only talking with one other
council member at a time to violate the
[3:33:57] meeting. So maybe I misunderstood that
earlier. Serial meetings are okay for
[3:34:03] legislative things, but not for serial
meeting. I never really heard somebody
[3:34:11] talk about it. Yeah. a serial meeting.
The only thing that I would say
[3:34:14] qualifies as a serial meeting prohibited
by the open records act is email goes
[3:34:18] from council A to council B gets
forwarded on to councelor C. You just
[3:34:23] had a meeting because three of you just
about
[3:34:27] something on the legislative
matters talk with whatever other
[3:34:32] counselor you want whenever you want to.
Yeah, sure. That's what I thought.
[3:34:37] That's what I think. Yes. Like she said,
it's why it's hard to understand because
[3:34:43] we are just almost completely
diametrically opposed rules. I can think
[3:34:47] of a situation. Let's say um myself or
staff were trying to
[3:34:55] avoid getting a a decision made by the
council. And we did it by
[3:35:03] organizing meeting between two, meeting
between two, meeting between two, and
[3:35:08] then meeting with one. And we took the
individual's judgment on that and said,
[3:35:15] "Okay, decision made, but it's something
that should be a decision in an open
[3:35:20] session."
that it may not violate the law, but it
[3:35:26] is certainly not transparent and it is
certainly probably not good. Well,
[3:35:32] something and if it's a decision made
technically, it's probably not their
[3:35:36] decision because you didn't make it
before then. Well, but you can see the
[3:35:41] potential like if if I then signed an IG
based on that direction, I could get in
[3:35:49] trouble for that. Yeah. Well, yeah, I
should get in trouble for that.
[3:35:58] Um, so, so again, the real distinction
is legislative and quaso judicial
[3:36:04] because it's legislative, there's just
very few rules at home other than don't
[3:36:08] meet more than two at a time. And quazo
judicial sort of the accident, don't
[3:36:13] meet with anybody
ever, don't talk about it at all. and
[3:36:17] and if you do let somebody know so that
at the public hearing you know that
[3:36:22] communication can be disclosed so the
other side can have fairness and
[3:36:26] respond
that's help okay thank you for
[3:36:31] clarifying
sure that that all I had okie dokie uh
[3:36:38] any questions last questions that work
session
[3:36:43] comments then there will be a brief
break and regular council meeting will
[3:36:50] start at
7. Stacy, is dinner here yet? You know
[3:36:56] what? I haven't seen I'll go check.
[3:42:19] I'll be nice and
[Laughter]
[3:42:27] although you know it's flavored tobacco
band tonight.
[3:42:35] Okay, I'll I'll grab some more chairs.
You think? Yeah. Yeah. We will have high
[3:42:40] school students.
[3:42:45] Florida or something.
That's true.
[3:42:57] Will be here. God bless.
[3:43:01] Well, you know what? The high school
students, they weren't even supposed to
[3:43:04] be using it anyway, so they shouldn't be
coming.
[3:43:18] I got my child.
[3:43:24] That's good news.
to get away with it. That was Yeah,
[3:43:29] that's not great.
[3:43:42] 95 miles hour and the next person goes
by 65 and get pulled over to speed.
[3:43:48] Wow.
not muted. We could hear all of that
[3:43:52] whole conversation about the smoking and
[Music]
[3:44:01] kids talking about kids coming
[3:44:06] and we heard how they shouldn't be doing
it. I just wanted No, we didn't talk
[3:44:11] about how they shouldn't be doing it.
[3:44:22] I don't want kids.
[3:44:26] [Music]
[3:44:44] We didn't say just that you should.
That's weird because I definitely muted.
[3:44:49] I must have missed when I clicked.
We could just keep it easy.
[4:20:11] Mr. Mayor, you're on mic and recording.
Great. Thank you, Stacey.
[4:20:15] Hello, everybody. It is just a little
after 7 for April 22nd regular meeting
[4:20:20] of the Frisco Town Council. We're going
to call the meeting to order. And with
[4:20:24] that, let's have a a roll call, please.
here. Incan here. Ryan here. Goldstein
[4:20:31] here. Gibby here. And script check.
Adrien is absent and Hold is absent.
[4:20:37] Great. Thank you, Stacy. With that,
we'll move on to our
[4:20:41] um public comments. And I want to thank
folks for coming forward with any public
[4:20:46] comments. And just with the note of
public comments are reserved for items
[4:20:50] that are not already on the meeting's
agenda. If you plan to make a comment on
[4:20:55] an item already appearing on the agenda,
please wait until the item is announced
[4:20:59] and public comment is requested at that
time. State your name, address for the
[4:21:04] record, be topic specific, and limit
comments to three minutes or less. No
[4:21:08] council action is taken on public
comments and council at council
[4:21:12] meetings. Council takes public comments
under advisement. And if a council and
[4:21:17] or staff response is deemed necessary or
appropriate, the individual making the
[4:21:21] comment will receive a formal response
from the town at a later date. It is
[4:21:26] recommended to sign in at the welcome
table at each meeting if providing
[4:21:31] in-person comment and include contact
information for follow-up communication.
[4:21:36] With that, do we have any public comment
in chambers?
[4:21:41] Do we have any public comment online?
No, Mr. No public comment in chambers or
[4:21:46] online. We'll close public comment and
we'll move on to um any council or mayor
[4:21:55] comments. Just want to again thank
public works staff for dealing with the
[4:22:00] snow that we had our late late season
snowfall and that all that mitigation
[4:22:04] went really well. And thank the police
department for working through our
[4:22:07] shoulder shoulder season. Now, as we all
know, we can from time to time have an
[4:22:12] uptick in um some bad actors in the
community on their way out of town. So,
[4:22:16] thank the police department for
you. With that, I'll close council and
[4:22:22] mayor comments and move on to staff
updates updates today, mayor. Great.
[4:22:27] Thank you, Tom. Um we are flying people.
Um
[4:22:32] with uh with no staff updates tonight,
um we'll move on to our consent agenda.
[4:22:39] Any discussion or perhaps a motion?
Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to approve
[4:22:44] the consent agenda.
We have a motion to approve the consent
[4:22:50] agenda and a second. Please call the
question. Adrien is absent. Ryan,
[4:22:56] yes. Yes. Goldstein, yes. Allan, yes.
Elders absent, and Incan, yes.
[4:23:05] Great. Thank you, Stacy. With that,
we'll move on to our first order agenda
[4:23:08] item number one this evening. It's first
reading of ordinance
[4:23:11] 25-07 an ordinance amending article six
of chapter 110 of the code of ordinances
[4:23:19] of the town of Frisco concerning tobacco
product retail licensing and sale
[4:23:24] regulations to prohibit the sale of
flavored tobacco products and the sales
[4:23:28] by dis sales by discontinuing of any
tobacco products in order to safeguard
[4:23:34] the public health particularly in the
the health of
[4:23:37] minors and I'll now turn it over to
staff and that it's going to be Stacy
[4:23:42] and Thad and Tom may have some
information to add. She moved
[4:23:48] team here. Um thank you mayor and
council. Stacy now town clerk for the
[4:23:52] record. Um the reason that you're
hearing from me this evening on this one
[4:23:56] is um because I oversee our licensing
program for these retailers. Um just
[4:24:01] wanted to briefly give um a shout out
and thank you to Lindsay Joyce who
[4:24:05] couldn't be here this evening but um she
is our recreation and events director of
[4:24:09] course but she helped me put together
that uh nice staff report for your
[4:24:12] packet. Um she also sits on the youth uh
use tobacco use prevention uh work group
[4:24:19] as well in the county. Um so really
appreciate her participation in that. Um
[4:24:25] so tonight you have the first reading of
this ordinance. Um, you know, just to
[4:24:30] remind all of you, as you're all aware,
um, we actually skipped the item. I
[4:24:34] don't the ET water service. I was just
going to come back to the water service
[4:24:38] agreement because that's been agendaized
as number one. Totally right. And I
[4:24:43] didn't even think I was just hungry for
the spotlight, I guess. Yes. Let's
[4:24:47] actually go with the agenda. Okay. To be
continued. To be continued. Thank you,
[4:24:52] Stacy. Yes. I I was comparing and I'm
thank you for being flexible. Oh, thank
[4:24:58] you for keeping us on point. Come on
down. And with that, let me just
[4:25:03] formalize our agenda item number one
tonight, which is consideration of an
[4:25:06] application for extratorial water
services agreement for 0173 Summit
[4:25:12] County Road uh 1041. And with that, we
have Chris McInness, a public works
[4:25:17] director and town engineer. Thanks. You
may town council. Um yeah, we have
[4:25:23] before you a application for extr
territorial water in Frisco. Just to
[4:25:27] give a little background since I think
this is the first one we've had for a
[4:25:31] couple of the members here. Um in 2023,
the town passed an ordinance for extr
[4:25:36] territorial uh water. This was a process
to formalize um the requirements and the
[4:25:42] process to serve water to people outside
of the town of Frisco boundaries. Um
[4:25:47] just kind of a high level overview of a
few of the requirements. The main ones
[4:25:50] is that anyone uh who will be served
with extr territorial water uh has to be
[4:25:55] connected to Frisco sanitation sewer.
They have to uh pay and construct for
[4:26:00] any improvements to the water system in
order to be served by the water and they
[4:26:04] either have to bring water rights to the
town of Frisco or they have to pay an
[4:26:07] inloo fee which then um assists the town
for acquiring uh additional water rights
[4:26:12] in the future. Um so before you we have
an application for 0173 County Road 1041
[4:26:19] and this property uh we have existing
water infrastructure in County Road 1041
[4:26:24] there. They are proposing uh to pay the
inloo fee um in place of dedicating
[4:26:30] water rights. Um and with this we
recommend approval of the application
[4:26:36] for extr territorial water uh based on
the existing infrastructure in place to
[4:26:41] serve them. they meet the requirements
of the town code in the application and
[4:26:46] the town staff has determined it would
not cause detrimental impacts to the
[4:26:50] town water system. And I'm here for any
questions on this application.
[4:26:56] Is that one house or
they would be paying the uh the inloo
[4:27:02] fee for one single family equivalent on
the water rights?
[4:27:07] Chris, can you just refresh my memory?
What neighborhood is that in? So that is
[4:27:12] um so it's unincorporated county and uh
opposite of school road um off of
[4:27:17] Highway 9. Um it's off of in there. So
Frisco Heights if you will. Yeah. Just
[4:27:22] so everyone has a reference of where
we're talking. Yep. Cool. Any other
[4:27:26] questions for
Chris and the the fee and Lou Chris is
[4:27:32] commensurate with our formula to for
such a factor that we went through the
[4:27:37] process. a
a calculator and formula was developed
[4:27:40] um when we passed the ordinance in 2023
and and then it yeah bases it off that
[4:27:44] based on the uh the usage um for an
equivalent amount of water rights.
[4:27:48] Gotcha. Cool. Thank you. And a little
more background for the folks. The
[4:27:54] neighborhood of Frisco Heights is unique
because we do have water infrastructure
[4:27:58] running through there um in some places
and this is another opportunity for
[4:28:03] residents in that neighborhood to tap
into our system. I I don't know the the
[4:28:08] the totality of the infrastructure
that's there, but it's a discussion
[4:28:11] that's come up quite a bit in the past
that we do have uh water manes already
[4:28:16] in place and it's per the application
the occupancy is already on the Frisco
[4:28:22] sanitation system as well. Correct.
Yeah. Okay, cool. Further questions with
[4:28:29] that. We'll open it up to public
comments right now. Chris, thanks. Just
[4:28:32] give us a moment. If anyone would like
to make a comment, please come forward
[4:28:35] to the podium.
[4:28:46] My name is Sharon I reside at 173
Fris uh County Road
[4:28:52] 1041. Um we've enjoyed the Summit
County life for over 25 years starting
[4:29:01] in 2001.
2008, we bought the 173 property knowing
[4:29:07] that we had was already a 40-year-old
structure and a 40-year-old well. Well,
[4:29:14] now we're
um almost 15 years
[4:29:19] later. So, all I want is to be able to
take a shower and not worry about
[4:29:26] um running out of water. our grandson
called to say, "Grandma, grandma, we
[4:29:30] don't have any water." So, we've contact
various
[4:29:36] um well companies and things like that
and they noticed we had a line running
[4:29:41] in front of the home. So, they suggested
that we apply to hook up to city water.
[4:29:48] Thank you. Great. Thank you for your
comment.
[4:29:52] Bring it. Any other public comment
online? No other public comment. I will
[4:29:57] close public comment. We'll bring it
back to council for any
[4:30:01] clarifications. And just as another
note, in in recent past, we've had other
[4:30:07] neighborhoods that were on wells within
Summit County, not not here in Frisco,
[4:30:12] and their wells
um for for they went dry is is what what
[4:30:18] had happened in other communities. And
as we continue over the next several
[4:30:23] years, I would anticipate more and more
folks, if we haven't had that
[4:30:27] conversation yet, wanting to come into
our system. Um, so this is just a a
[4:30:32] natural progression of folks that are
going from well into the city side of it
[4:30:39] for the supply, for the consistency, and
the sustainability of it, for their
[4:30:44] habitation. So, thank you for that. And
just a little background for everybody.
[4:30:49] Any other comments, questions, or a
motion? And just to be clear, we're
[4:30:55] approve the what we're what we're voting
on in what we're voting on is allowing
[4:31:01] the occupant and the resident and the
owner to pay for their residents to tap
[4:31:07] into our infrastructure to come online
with Frisco. and they're going to pay
[4:31:12] instead of bringing water rights forward
to us for a trade-off, they're just
[4:31:16] going to pay the cash in
loop. Just so we're all clear.
[4:31:22] Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to approve
the application for extra territorial
[4:31:26] water service for 0173 Summit County
Road 1040.
[4:31:30] Second. Great. We have a motion and a
second uh to approve agenda item number
[4:31:36] one. Please call the question. Yes.
Check. Adrienne is absent. Ryan, yes.
[4:31:41] Kibby, yes. Goldstein, yes. Allan, yes.
And Held is absent. Great. Thank you,
[4:31:47] Stacy. With that, we'll close that. And
a motion has passed. So, thank you for
[4:31:51] coming in. With that, we'll move on to
the very anticipated agenda item number
[4:31:56] two.
um which will be I'll read for the
[4:32:00] record is first reading of ordinance
25-07 an ordinance amending article six
[4:32:05] of the chapter 110 of the code of
ordinances of the town of Frisco
[4:32:10] concerning tobacco product retail
licensing and sales
[4:32:15] regulations I'm not stopping to prohibit
the sale of flavored tobacco products
[4:32:21] and the sale and sale by discontinuing
any of the tobacco products in order to
[4:32:28] safeguard the public health,
particularly the health of minors. And
[4:32:32] with that, we're going to bring it on
over to Stacy and Thad and Tom.
[4:32:38] Yeah. Um, so I will not repeat anything
in the interest of time, but um, just
[4:32:44] starting up where I left off, um, you
all actually directed staff to come back
[4:32:48] with this ordinance. It was during your
February 25th work session, and so
[4:32:52] council members Ryan and Goldstein may
not remember this. um unless you
[4:32:56] attended that. But um from your
strategic plan that you all adopted in
[4:33:02] late 2024,
um you all mention council's public
[4:33:06] service commitment um assuring a
thriving future for the town of Frisco.
[4:33:10] And your vision statement calls out
supporting opportunities for community
[4:33:14] well-being. And so those are two uh ways
in which this ordinance really fits in
[4:33:19] with your strategic plan. I won't sit
here and browbeat you all about um too
[4:33:24] many of the data and statistics that are
available in the interest of time with
[4:33:27] regard to um you know youth prevention
and basically how these products and
[4:33:32] these companies are essentially target
targeting youth um with these flavors
[4:33:36] and products um they're really driving
the use of these products um and masking
[4:33:41] the detrimental and um adverse effects
um to health with flavor names like that
[4:33:49] reflect breakfast cereals and desserts
and fruity candy flavors. Um, you know,
[4:33:56] almost 90% of adult daily smokers
started smoking by the age of 18.
[4:34:01] Smoking related illnesses cost Colorado
almost $2 billion per year. Um, it's
[4:34:06] quoted at about $1.8 billion.
Um, these companies are super creative
[4:34:12] and they're just continuing to try to
sell their addictive products and this
[4:34:15] is one way that um, with our home rule
authority, we can really exercise um,
[4:34:20] you know, a ban on these types of
products for our community.
[4:34:24] um federal agencies, you know, you all
have been presented with through County
[4:34:28] Youth and Family Services, um from the
National Institute of Health, US
[4:34:32] Department of Health and Human Services,
and the FDA, uh just with countless
[4:34:38] instances and reasons why these products
are just adverse to the health of our
[4:34:42] community, um particularly our youth.
And um an interesting statistic that I
[4:34:48] got from Becky Peltier over at County
Youth and Family Services is that
[4:34:52] tobacco and nicotine products are
available in over
[4:34:55] 15,500 flavors nationwide right now.
That is staggering. It's not just
[4:35:01] cherry, strawberry, watermelon. It's
gummy bear, cotton candy, pink lemonade,
[4:35:07] uh crunch berry, all of these different
types of names. And it's just
[4:35:12] pretty staggering, I guess.
Um so staff, you know, we're
[4:35:18] recommending tonight that you vote to
approve this ordinance on first reading,
[4:35:22] um particularly due to the strategic
plan language, our partnership and
[4:35:26] continuing relationship with county
youth and family services, uh the
[4:35:30] direction of this council to bring forth
this ordinance um that will reflect
[4:35:34] these code amendments in this ban. And
I'll turn it over to Thaad just to touch
[4:35:38] specifically on the ordinance before you
tonight.
[4:35:44] Um, some relatively simple changes to
the ordinance. There's a proposal to
[4:35:49] broaden out the statement of legislative
intent to better reflect the flavor ban
[4:35:52] rather than just a prohibition of of
sales to people who are under 21. Um, it
[4:35:58] adopts the definition of the term
coupon. Um, the term flavored tobacco
[4:36:02] product and the term full retail price
to accomplish the flavor ban and then
[4:36:07] the prohibition on discounting. those
provisions, those definitions and the
[4:36:12] provisions that prohibit um sale of
flavored tobacco products and and and
[4:36:17] sale of any tobacco products through
discounting methods is the language that
[4:36:22] was proposed by the coalition that that
visited us recently and is the language
[4:36:29] um that is consistent with Dylan and
Silverthorn's code adoption. I am
[4:36:36] looking for a little direction. At the
time I wrote the ordinance, I was not
[4:36:39] aware uh as to whether a certain date
had been chosen by the various
[4:36:45] jurisdictions on which this prohibition
should start. Um my understanding now is
[4:36:50] that um that that desired date is
January 1st of 2026. I left a blank in
[4:36:57] there for 2025. Um obviously that time
period will give um the town and the
[4:37:03] other towns in the county some time to
educate their retailers about the
[4:37:07] upcoming prohibition and then some time
to um rid themselves of stock in in
[4:37:13] hand. Um with that I'm happy to answer
any questions you might have on the
[4:37:17] ordinance. I have a question maybe for
you and maybe Stacy and this is not
[4:37:21] really in relation to my position on
this topic but for my own education. You
[4:37:26] mentioned uh prohibition on flavors
specifically. What would happen under
[4:37:34] home rule if we wanted to ban flavored
vodka?
[4:37:40] We don't have a specific statutory
authorization to do so. So you're really
[4:37:46] not dealing with in in adopting this
provision. And I know that Stacy has
[4:37:50] said it's your home world authority, but
in this instance, we don't need our home
[4:37:53] authority because the the state through
its legislative process adopted
[4:37:58] provisions years ago said, "Hey,
municipalities, if you want to regulate
[4:38:02] in this area, you can." Right? So, so
that's a very good question. I don't
[4:38:07] know the answer. I wouldn't be terribly
comfortable with it without a statutory
[4:38:12] authorization, which we have for the
cigarettes. We don't have Thank you for
[4:38:16] that. Yep.
And it's not just cigarettes, it's
[4:38:19] nicotine products. Correct. I'm sorry.
It's not just cigarettes. It's nicotine.
[4:38:24] I Yeah, that includes vapes that, you
know, tobacco product is very broadly
[4:38:30] defined. Cigarettes, vapes, any any
other device that can deliver nicotine
[4:38:34] into your bloodstream. Right. Thanks.
That y any other questions from the
[4:38:40] team?
[4:38:45] I should have mentioned just as part of
your motion if someone will recite
[4:38:48] January 1,
2026 be helpful. Your second reading
[4:38:55] just when your deliberation comes up, I
want to make sure that I I represent
[4:39:00] something that I received from a council
member. Got it. I'll get there after
[4:39:03] public comments. So, with that, we'll
uh move on to any public comments on
[4:39:10] this item this evening. And with that,
I'll open it up to the council chambers.
[4:39:16] If anyone in chambers has a comment,
please come on up.
[4:39:30] Good evening. My name is Esau Hernandez.
I'm from the Youth Empowerment Society
[4:39:35] of Summit or
YES and I'm here to speak in favor of
[4:39:41] banning all flavored nicotine products.
We need to protect our classmates and
[4:39:47] younger kids from getting addicted to
nicotine. And I am Yiel Gomez and I am
[4:39:54] also from Yes, I completely agree.
Flavored products are designed to
[4:39:58] attract teens like us and it's working.
We've seen too many of our peers get
[4:40:02] addicted and it needs to stop.
Livered products are a huge reason why
[4:40:08] teens start using nicotine.
93.2% of youth ages 12 to 17 who have
[4:40:17] ever used the ecigarette reported their
first product was flavored like candy
[4:40:22] and fruit flavors. And I have personally
seen this myself as a high school
[4:40:28] student. This is a tobacco industry
directly targeting
[4:40:33] us. In a memo from RJ Reynolds, they
said, "Make a cigarette which is
[4:40:39] obviously youth oriented. This could
involve cigarette names, blends,
[4:40:45] flavors, and marketing techniques. For
example, a flavor which could be
[4:40:49] candyike but give the satisfaction of a
cigarette.
[4:40:54] We have seen some of our friends who
have been curious about the different
[4:40:58] flavors of vapes and other nicotine
products and from there their their
[4:41:03] addiction journey has started. And even
though there are federal laws in place,
[4:41:08] local tobacco retailers find ways around
them with no other way to ensure
[4:41:14] compliance at the local
level. If flavors weren't available at
[4:41:18] all, fewer students would even think
about trying them. Not to mention the
[4:41:24] long-term health risk. According to the
CDC website, they state that nicotine
[4:41:29] can harm brain development, which
doesn't stop growing till about the age
[4:41:33] of 25. They also state that it can harm
the parts of the brain that control
[4:41:38] attention, learning, mood, and impulse
control. And we can't afford to let that
[4:41:43] happen to our
generation. This isn't just about
[4:41:47] personal choices. It's about public
health in our c in our county. Towns
[4:41:53] have a responsibility to protect young
people from a lifetime addiction. Most
[4:41:58] kids in high school are already
developing this lifetime addiction.
[4:42:03] This is an in the 2023 Healthy Kids
Colorado survey reported that among
[4:42:08] those underage Summit high school
students who have tried to buy tobacco
[4:42:13] or vaping products in a store. The
percentage who were not refused because
[4:42:19] of age was
81%. We believe protecting kids is the
[4:42:24] most important. This ban is a necessary
step. Over 400 Summit middle school and
[4:42:31] high school students filled out
postcards in support of this ban. We
[4:42:36] brought 40 of of them with us today. We
urge the town of Frisco to take action
[4:42:42] now. Let's make Summit County a
continued leader in protecting the youth
[4:42:46] from nicotine addiction. Thank you.
Thank you.
[4:42:54] Any other public comments in the
chambers?
[4:43:04] Good evening, mayor and council members.
I'm Eric Hador, Colorado government
[4:43:07] relations director for the American
Heart Association. I'm here today to
[4:43:11] express the organization's support of
the town's efforts to end the sale of
[4:43:15] all flavored tobacco products and to
thank you for the work that you're doing
[4:43:18] on this. Uh tobacco and nicotine use are
major risk factors for heart disease and
[4:43:23] stroke. Tobacco use accounts for the
death of
[4:43:27] approximately 168,000 Americans each
year from cardiovascular disease. And in
[4:43:32] Colorado, tobacco kills over 5,000
people every year. You heard from the
[4:43:37] students how detrimental these products
are to their peers. But the problem
[4:43:41] doesn't stop with youth. flavored
tobacco products, particularly menthol
[4:43:45] cigarettes, disproportionately harm
communities of color, lowincome
[4:43:50] populations, and LGBTQ plus individuals.
These groups have been targeted for
[4:43:56] decades through predatory marketing
practices. And the results is higher
[4:44:00] rates of tobacco related related illness
and deaths in the communities. Despite
[4:44:05] any claims, flavored vapes, nicotine
pouches, and other smokeless products
[4:44:10] are not FDA approved for smoking
sessation and are not safe alternatives
[4:44:15] to cigarettes. They deliver a far more
highly addictive nicotine. They are
[4:44:20] riddled with potential harmful chemicals
and often adults will be dual users of
[4:44:25] products. Um, again, I just want to
thank you for your efforts on this and
[4:44:30] uh ask that you move swiftly to end the
sale of all flavored tobacco products.
[4:44:33] Thank you. Thank
you. Any other public comments?
[4:44:42] Good evening, mayor. Um, council
members. My name is Jody Ragi. I'm a
[4:44:46] regional director with the campaign for
tobaccof free kids. I've been with my
[4:44:49] organization over 18 years, but I've
been doing importantly local, state, and
[4:44:54] federal tobacco control work for over 22
years. A lot of that work being here in
[4:44:58] Colorado. So, really just wanted to be
here tonight to say thank you. Um, thank
[4:45:03] you for your important work to protect
Frisco's kids, to listening to your
[4:45:06] community, listening to your youth. Your
work couldn't come at a more important
[4:45:10] time. You've heard references to the
FDA, to CDC, to the Office for Smoking
[4:45:14] and Health, all those agencies, as you
know, are being dismantled. Um, so your
[4:45:18] work becomes even more critical. And
that reference earlier to cigarettes
[4:45:22] versus nicotine, there used to be state
um obstacles in state statute that would
[4:45:27] have limited your authority to do what
you're considering here tonight. my
[4:45:30] organization along with Eric Hador's
American Heart Association, we worked to
[4:45:35] make sure that our cities and counties
have the authority that you need to do
[4:45:38] this really important work. So, it's
with real real pride to stand here
[4:45:42] tonight to see you um and other
communities around you doing the same
[4:45:46] work and you join 400 communities from
across the country. The one thing I'll
[4:45:51] just say is that we all know the rates
are coming down. We've been successful
[4:45:54] since cities and counties have had the
authority to do this work. And that's
[4:45:58] why it makes it even more critical that
we don't take our foot off the gas as we
[4:46:01] see these rates go down. We know they're
going down because places like Frisco
[4:46:05] and other places around the state are
passing really critical, important
[4:46:08] policies to bring these rates down. And
you may remember that Colorado used to
[4:46:12] lead the nation in vaping use across the
country. Pridefully, we no longer have
[4:46:16] that headline because of the work that's
being done. And we need to keep doing
[4:46:20] that work because the tobacco industry
continues to innovate. So you heard
[4:46:23] about the flavored products, but what
you may not see or hear are products. I
[4:46:27] brought one just to show and tell. Um
you can order these, but these are the
[4:46:30] products are teachers are seeing in the
schools. This functions as a ballpoint
[4:46:34] pen, but it's also a vape pen. So when
people say, "Why aren't parents doing
[4:46:39] more? Why aren't teachers doing more?" I
think arguably we can all look at these
[4:46:43] products and say they have a certain
intention. And it's really to be
[4:46:46] concealed, discreet, and really easy to
use by our kids. And so it's with these
[4:46:52] policy changes that we protect the next
generation. And we lead by example. And
[4:46:56] you're doing exactly that. So I just
wanted to say again, thank you for your
[4:47:00] work here to protect your community for
Frisco's kids and importantly for being
[4:47:04] a compass because other communities will
follow your lead. So thank you for what
[4:47:07] you're doing here tonight. Great. Thank
you. Any other public comment in
[4:47:13] chambers?
[4:47:18] None. Any online? No, Mr. Mayor. Thank
you, Stacey. With that, we'll close
[4:47:23] public comment and come back to council
and staff for any further discussion.
[4:47:30] Tom, you got some discussion? I'll just
uh read what um uh council member script
[4:47:36] checking wrote and wanted me to bring
up. So,
[4:47:41] um, word for word, the the flavored
nicotine ban. I would just say that I'm
[4:47:46] not a proponent of telling businesses
what they cannot
[4:47:49] sell. Is it possible to put this on next
year's ballot as a mega tax? Question.
[4:47:55] Perhaps nicotine funds wouldn't totally
drop. I'm not sure if this is a good
[4:47:59] idea or not. So, thank you for sharing.
Any other discussion or comments on
[4:48:07] councel or a motion?
[4:48:14] What what did you wanted to add to the
ordinance number and setting
[4:48:21] um January 1st of 2026 as the effective
date in section 3.
[4:48:27] Mr. Mayor, I make an
enthusiastic motion to approve the first
[4:48:32] reading of 256
uh with an effective date of July uh
[4:48:39] January 1, 202 January 20 January 1st,
2026.
[4:48:47] Got it. For that, we have a motion
that's been made for agenda item number
[4:48:52] three,
[4:48:56] two um with an effective date of January
1, 2026. Do we have a second?
[4:49:03] Second.
Great. We have a motion and a second.
[4:49:07] Please call the question. Alan, yes. Eld
is absent. Inken, yes. Scrap check.
[4:49:13] Adrian is absent. Ryan, yes. KB. Yes.
And Goldstein, yes.
[4:49:24] Got it. And with that, this motion has
passed. Thank you everyone for their
[4:49:29] discussion this evening and comments.
And with that, we'll move on to agenda
[4:49:33] item number
three, which is resolution
[4:49:37] 25-07, approving a grant agreement with
the Colorado Housing and Finance
[4:49:43] Authority for additional funding to
support the purchase of 101 West Main
[4:49:48] for the purpose of affordable housing.
And with that, we're going to open it up
[4:49:53] to staff, which I believe is going to be
THAAD.
[4:49:57] Sure.
Um the title says it all again. Um, this
[4:50:04] is a a grant agreement between the town
and the Colorado Housing Finance
[4:50:08] Authority.
um under which the town would be would
[4:50:12] receive um excuse me $5 million in grant
funding with the understanding that that
[4:50:18] $5 million would be used to purchase the
property at 101 Main currently owned by
[4:50:24] NHP and the same brush stroke
essentially to give a long-term ground
[4:50:30] lease back to NHP for that property for
a nominal set. As we've discussed
[4:50:34] previously, it's a way for the town to
put $5 million into that project through
[4:50:40] grant money from the state. Um, this
is this is the first time you have read
[4:50:47] this, but it is connected with the
second reading of 251, which is the next
[4:50:54] and so we'll come back around to that,
but in the meantime, I'm happy to answer
[4:50:58] any questions on the grant agreement
itself. Cool. Thanks, Sad. Sure. Any
[4:51:02] other staff comments? Any questions from
council on this
[4:51:07] topic? With that, we'll open it up to
any public comments in
[4:51:13] chambers. Seeing none, any public
comment online? None there. I will close
[4:51:18] public comment. And we'll come back to
council comment, questions, and or a
[4:51:26] motion.
[4:51:29] A motion to approve resolution
25-7 approving grant agreement with
[4:51:35] Colorado Housing and Finance Authority
Chaffa for additional funding to support
[4:51:40] the purchase of 101 West Main for the
purpose of affordable housing.
[4:51:46] A second. Yep. With that, we have a a
motion to approve agenda item number
[4:51:51] three. In a second, please call the
question. Eld is absent. Inken, yes.
[4:51:56] Repean is absent. Ryan, yes. Kibby,
Goldstein, and Allan, yes. With that,
[4:52:04] the motion has passed. One thing I would
add is I'll ask Neil to check in with
[4:52:07] the clerk before he leaves tonight,
please.
[4:52:11] Um, with that, let's move on to old
business, which is going to be agenda
[4:52:16] item number four, which
is second reading of ordinance 25-01, an
[4:52:24] ordinance authorizing a purchase, sale,
and leaseback agreement between the town
[4:52:29] of
Frisco and NHPF West Main LLC for the
[4:52:35] property located at 101 West
Main for the purpose
[4:52:40] purposes of affordable housing and
development. And with that, we're going
[4:52:45] to open that up to staff and I believe
we're back to that again. I think you're
[4:52:50] right, mayor. Um,
prior grant agreement was how we get the
[4:52:56] money and this agreement with NHP is
what the town does with that money, that
[4:53:01] $5 million. Council, this is a second
reading. Um and and just the edification
[4:53:07] of our new members. State statute
requires approval by ordinance anytime
[4:53:11] the town goes to sell a piece of real
property or to authorize a lease of real
[4:53:16] property as the landlord that uh is
longer in term than one year. So in this
[4:53:22] deal we are purchasing a property. So
you wouldn't need the ordinance of that.
[4:53:26] But then we're turning right around and
we're leasing it out a long-term ground
[4:53:30] lease for 75 years if my memory serves
me. Um so that's the reason we're doing
[4:53:35] this by ordinance. The this was approved
on first reading by all members present
[4:53:41] at that first reading. Um the it has
changed the agreement itself has changed
[4:53:47] since first reading in a couple of
fairly minor respects. The first is to
[4:53:54] uh it's been revised to set a deadline
on NHP to resolve to Chaffa's
[4:54:00] satisfaction concerns that Chaffa may
have and does have with some of the
[4:54:04] title issues on that property. So in
other words, short way of saying that is
[4:54:09] Chaffa is not going to give us our $5
million grant until they are satisfied
[4:54:13] with the state of title on that
property. And accordingly, this
[4:54:16] agreement has been revised to say, "And
we're not going to buy the property from
[4:54:19] you with the $5 million until we get it
from Chaffa, so you have to satisfy
[4:54:23] CHF's concerns about title." Our grant
commitment ends on July the
[4:54:30] 31st. Their obligation to resolve the
title issues to Chaffa's satisfaction.
[4:54:37] Um, that deadline is June the I'm sorry,
July the 15th. What we don't want to
[4:54:43] face is a situation where we have to go
into Chapa after the deadline and say
[4:54:49] gosh we just didn't get it done in time.
So if so that's that's the significant
[4:54:54] that's the substantive change um from
the first version of the agreement.
[4:54:58] There are also some changes to the
ground lease that is an exhibit to this
[4:55:02] purchase sale and lease back agreement.
Those changes were made to make the
[4:55:07] ground lease for 101 Maine more
consistent with the ground lease that
[4:55:11] had been negotiated and recently
approved for 602 Galina. There were it's
[4:55:15] primarily having to do with insurance
requirements on the part of NHP. They
[4:55:18] were
fairly I guess what I would say
[4:55:22] non-material changes to the lease
agreement but there were some revisions
[4:55:25] there as well. Um, with that, I'm happy
to answer any questions, but as I say
[4:55:30] that the idea is we buy the property
from NHP and we turn right back around
[4:55:34] and we lease it to them under a
long-term remedies all at the same
[4:55:38] table.
Great. Thank you, Y. Any questions for
[4:55:43] that? Any further staff comments? With
that, let's open it up to public
[4:55:48] comments. Any public comments in
chamber? Not seeing any. We'll go to
[4:55:53] public comments online.
No public comment online. I will close
[4:55:58] public public comment and we'll come
back
[4:56:00] to council for any further discussion or
[4:56:07] motion. Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we
[Music]
[4:56:14] approve the second reading of ordinance
25-01.
[4:56:20] Thank you.
Great. We have a motion and a second to
[4:56:26] approve our second reading
um for our first item of bold business
[4:56:31] this evening. And with that, please call
the question.
[4:56:34] Yes. Yes. Is absent. Incant. Yes. Prep
check. Adrienne is absent. Ryan, yes.
[4:56:45] Great. Stacy.
[4:56:49] And with that, we're going to roll into
our last agenda item this evening.
[4:56:53] Agenda item number five is second
reading of ordinance 25-06, an ordinance
[4:56:58] amending chapter 180 of the code of
ordinances of the town of Frisco
[4:57:02] concerning zoning by amending the
section 180-5.2.9
[4:57:08] 2.9 concerning licensing requirements
and limitations for the retail marijuana
[4:57:13] businesses in order to create
consistency between the license renewal
[4:57:18] fees for the town's processing of
applications for renewal of retail and
[4:57:24] medical marijuana facility licenses. And
with that, we're going to turn it over
[4:57:28] to stop, which is that one more time. I
would have said
[4:57:32] sl you point at
[4:57:37] me second reading again um this
ordinance was approved by all members
[4:57:42] present uh on first reading it is a
pretty simple change to our uh licensing
[4:57:49] or code provisions concerning licensing
of medical and retail marijuana
[4:57:52] facilities as discussed at the last
meeting. Our code currently provides a
[4:57:56] $3,000 application fee for both a
medical and retail initial license
[4:58:02] application. But then when it comes to
renewal of that application, the medical
[4:58:07] fee drops to 1500 and the retail renewal
fee stays at 3,000. For the reasons
[4:58:13] discussed at the last meeting, both
legal and practical or administrative
[4:58:17] staff is recommending that those two be
brought in line so that for each type of
[4:58:21] application or each type of license, the
initial application is 3,000. We know it
[4:58:26] was 1500. With that, I'm happy to answer
any questions.
[4:58:30] Any questions for
Thaad? Great. No further questions for
[4:58:35] THAAD. Thank you, Thad. With that, we'll
open up the public comments. I seeing
[4:58:38] none in chambers. Any online?
none on land line. We'll close public
[4:58:44] comments and come back to council for
any further discussion or a motion.
[4:58:51] Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to approve
the second reading of ordinance 25-06.
[4:59:02] Second. Thank you, Zach.
[4:59:07] Um, he's fall asleep.
With that, Stacy, we have a motion in a
[4:59:13] second for second reading of ordinance
25-06. Please call the question. Yes.
[4:59:20] Goldstein, yes. Allan, yes. Held is
absent. Inken, yes. Scrub Check. Adrien
[4:59:25] is absent. Ryan, yes.
Great. Thank you, Stacy.
[4:59:34] With that, this is really the last item
of this evening. So, with that, we're
[4:59:38] going to
[4:59:42] want to say the wrong word. Is it a
jour? Yeah, we're going to counsel.
[4:59:46] Okay. We're going to adjourn a regular
council meeting. I wanted to say pause
[4:59:49] or whatever. Um, and we're going to move
into a
[4:59:53] uh I'm going to say it wrong. The Frisco
Housing Authority
[4:59:59] um meeting and we're going to start
that. And with that, we've done this, I
[5:00:04] think, once before with this group. So,
we're going to call another roll call.
[5:00:08] Do we need to formally adjurnn, please?
Motion and second to He takes a motion,
[5:00:13] then he just adjourns. Mr. Mayor, I
think
[5:00:17] motion to adjurnn or adjourn. Next
meeting.
[5:00:22] Unanimous vote to adjurnn. Yes. Got it.
Thank you.
[5:00:27] Um, yes. We'll call for the Frisco
Community Housing Development Authority.
[5:00:31] Allan, yes, here. Inken, yes. Ryan,
here. Thank you. Goldstein here. Here.
[5:00:41] And just for the record, Script Tech
Adrian is absent and Held is also
[5:00:45] absent.
Great.
[5:00:50] And with that, thank you, Stacy. We're
going to open up the floor to public
[5:00:53] comment. Public comments re reserved for
this item not already on the meeting
[5:00:58] agenda and follow the same policy and
procedure for town council
[5:01:03] meetings. Do we have any public comment
on this item this evening? Seeing none
[5:01:07] in chambers, any
online? None online. We'll keep moving
[5:01:12] forward. We'll close public comment. And
do we have any further uh mayor or
[5:01:19] council comments?
[5:01:24] or commission or yeah commission.
[5:01:29] Um and with that with no comments that
we don't have any uh additions or
[5:01:34] agendas to
the
[5:01:39] ordinance and with that you're just
approving minutes from the previous
[5:01:44] meeting on consent. Approve the minutes
from the cons. Yeah, it is a consent
[5:01:47] agenda. So with that, our first item,
just to follow the same order, I'm just
[5:01:52] organizing my thoughts out loud to
everybody, is we're going to approve the
[5:01:56] consent agenda should there be no
opposition. So with that, I would
[5:02:00] entertain a motion of discussion about
the consent agenda, which is the meeting
[5:02:04] minutes from our last meeting, or take a
motion to approve
[5:02:12] them. Make a motion to approve the uh
consent agenda.
[5:02:19] Second. Great. We have a motion to
approve the consent agenda and a second.
[5:02:24] Please call the question. Goldstein,
yes. Allan, yes.
[5:02:31] Incan, yes. Scrub Check. Adrian is
absent. Ryan, yes. And Kibby, yes.
[5:02:36] Great. Thanks everybody. Um, with that,
we'll move on to our first order of new
[5:02:41] business, which is agenda item number
one, resolution.
[5:02:46] Wow.
[5:02:50] FCHDA25-03 approving a second amended
and restated development agreement
[5:02:56] between the town of Frisco and the
Frisco Community Housing Development
[5:03:00] Authority, the NHP Foundation, and NHPF
West Main LLC as amended and restatement
[5:03:09] of the development agreement between the
town of Frisco and the NHP Foundation
[5:03:14] dated as of April 8th, 2025 as related
to the affordable housing development to
[5:03:20] be constructed at 602 Galina Street.
There was an error in that title in the
[5:03:25] reference to 101 main in the first
instance. It's all that should also be a
[5:03:30] reference to 602 Galina as was the last
one. So, it's just a typographic error
[5:03:34] in that title. This is all about 602
Galina, nothing
[5:03:39] else. Got it.
Super. We will. So with that everybody
[5:03:44] if we can when we make a motion we'll
just reread it insert 602 wherever 101
[5:03:50] may appear um and it's not the worst one
to read. Um so with that we'll bring it
[5:03:55] back to for staff discussion. Sure. This
is the identical agreement. Nothing has
[5:04:03] changed from the form of this agreement
that was approved by two readings of a
[5:04:08] council ordinance. Right. This is a 602
Galina agreement that you approved on
[5:04:13] second
reading at the very last council meeting
[5:04:16] with my members serves me. Um you'll
you'll re you'll recall the the
[5:04:22] substantive change between first reading
and second reading was the filling of an
[5:04:26] $8 million gap. Um this the agreement
now comes before the housing authority
[5:04:32] for approval. And the reason that the
housing authority is being asked to be a
[5:04:37] party to this agreement is that um by
doing so it opens up the opportunity for
[5:04:43] the housing authority to become a very
small percentage owner in the you know
[5:04:49] limited liability company that gets set
up to develop this property. And by way
[5:04:56] of that minor amount of ownership, the
housing authority can then grant a a tax
[5:05:03] exemption. It can be a tax exempt
project. So So basically by the
[5:05:07] authorities's participation, a tax
exemption can be achieved to the project
[5:05:12] that wouldn't exist
otherwise. Having said that, all of the
[5:05:16] language is identical to what was
previously approved. Um, I know that NHP
[5:05:22] has since proposed a change, a
substantive change to the terms of the
[5:05:28] unconditional guarantee that is a part
of the loan agreement that is following
[5:05:33] this document.
Um, I'm going to let
[5:05:39] NHP explain the nature of the request.
Happy to take any questions on it.
[5:05:45] Presuming
that you as the housing authority decide
[5:05:49] to approve this agreement with this
amendment, the amendment will have to
[5:05:54] come back before council again for two
readings of an ordinance because it is a
[5:05:58] material change to the deal that was
already approved that has to be approved
[5:06:02] by ordinance we
discussed. With that, I'm going to turn
[5:06:05] it over to Tom or NHP if they'd like to
address the change proposed and then we
[5:06:11] can come back.
as part of public comment on the item or
[5:06:18] just invite NHP up to right talk about
their
[5:06:23] proposed change. You got it. With that,
Neil, can you give us a details? I was
[5:06:30] going to say summary, but we probably
need to know a little bit more than that
[5:06:32] on the proposed
[5:06:35] change. Proposed change is from a
repayment guarantee to a construction
[5:06:41] completion guarantee.
which is what we've essentially been
[5:06:46] offering uh from from the get-go. And
and the reason why this is important is
[5:06:52] in many ways this is a a a deal that is
not just on Frisco's radar screen, but
[5:07:02] is on the national
[5:07:06] radar screen. uh as one of, if not the
first 501c3 new construction
[5:07:14] uh workforce middle income deals.
Currently, NHP
[5:07:20] uh is is working on two similar
portfolios that are are slated to to
[5:07:28] close soon after this. 2,000 units in
Washington DC and 1500 in M Minnesota.
[5:07:37] uh a repayment guarantee is treated
substantially different by S&P than a
[5:07:46] construction completion guarantee. And
it, you know, based on our rating, which
[5:07:54] is what we're using to actually be able
to do the loan for this
[5:07:59] deal at, you know, as high a leverage
and as low a rate as we're able to get.
[5:08:06] um a repayment guarantee for reasons
that perhaps only S&P can truly explain
[5:08:13] takes it out of the bucket that they
look at as governmental subsidy loans,
[5:08:18] not really a loan, doesn't go against an
HP's debt limit, and puts it into real
[5:08:25] loan goes against our debt limit.
Prevents us to do future business. And
[5:08:31] it's not so much that $8 million is is
the difference, but on those other two
[5:08:36] deals which are looking to this deal,
you know, as the lead example and are
[5:08:42] being structured like it,
uh the numbers are substantially larger
[5:08:49] and we're sort of in a in a pickle. Now,
luckily they they don't really view
[5:08:55] construction guarantees that way.
They're viewed as sort of a normal
[5:09:01] contingent guarantee, you know, that we
give all the time to tax credit
[5:09:06] investors. I think it it ultimately
provides I think you the safety that
[5:09:12] that you that you want and you need,
which is we're not going to leave you a
[5:09:17] half finishedish building and walk out
of town. That we're going to finish what
[5:09:22] we started and it's going to pass all
the inspections and and get leased up.
[5:09:27] So
[5:09:30] that's the um the long and short of it.
Gotcha. Thank you, Neil. Any questions
[5:09:38] for Neil on the amendment or
addendum? Questions for
[5:09:46] Thaad? Great. No questions. Thanks,
Neil. We'll open it up to any public
[5:09:52] comment. No public comment in chambers.
Any online? None online. We'll close
[5:09:57] public comment, come back to council for
any further
[5:10:01] discussion
or commissioners for any further
[5:10:05] discussion.
With the approval of this, this goes
[5:10:09] back to council though regular session.
Correct. Because we made a change to it.
[5:10:14] It'll come back for two readings and
then not have to come back here because
[5:10:18] we approved it here. Correct.
[5:10:29] It doesn't matter if we did
[5:10:34] from the standpoint
of the project starting on time, it has
[5:10:38] no material effect because you're
already under a development agreement
[5:10:42] with NHP. It would change the nature of
the unconditional guarantee related to
[5:10:48] the loan
um but not the underlying terms of the
[5:10:53] development agreement.
[5:10:58] Um what's the consensus of staff on
this?
[5:11:03] Well, staff has not had a whole lot of
time to talk about it, but you know, it
[5:11:07] to to me it it and I'm guessing that
perhaps if I heard more from the
[5:11:15] attorneys, it might be a little
different, but um and so I suggest you
[5:11:19] ask that question as well. But um in
either case, if we were at the point
[5:11:26] where a a project was going to default
and we were going to be left with an
[5:11:31] unfinished building, we would be in
litigation whether we were trying to get
[5:11:37] our money back from a loan or we were
trying to get the project finished by
[5:11:43] who promised to finish it. So, I kind of
look at at it the same way that as long
[5:11:50] as there's an unconditional guarantee to
finish the project, we're probably okay.
[5:11:56] Plus, in either case, we would not pay
any further on that loan, which is going
[5:12:03] to get drawn over time. If we were in
that position, we would stop loaning the
[5:12:09] money
um and would hold back until such time
[5:12:14] as either somebody else started to build
that building again and we needed to put
[5:12:19] that money in or they started to build
that building again. Good clarity. Thank
[5:12:25] you. Did you have anything to add to
that? Not to add to it. I I would
[5:12:30] suggest that as this language is brought
back before council for another couple
[5:12:35] readings amendment that we invite this
is John's language right so I can
[5:12:39] comment on it but John can speak with a
more educated voice on the risks and the
[5:12:45] risk beingated and and the risks not um
but I don't disagree with with what said
[5:12:51] and certainly we do have that next
reading to discuss a further
[5:12:55] good question it is anyone else. Has
everyone had some time to to to at least
[5:13:04] have some discussions about what this
change is?
[5:13:08] Cool.
[5:13:11] Great. With that, I would entertain a
motion one way or the other. Uh, did I
[5:13:16] hear that we have to reread it and um
No, I think you can just approve the I
[5:13:21] just read resolution. Yeah, it looks
good, right? Noting the changes to the
[5:13:24] unconditional guarantee. I make a motion
we approve resolution FCHDA25-03
[5:13:33] with changes to the agreement indicated
um by NHP's red line of the
[5:13:38] unconditional guarantee as
[5:13:43] with as stated by town
attorney uh is that good enough that is
[5:13:49] fine motion yeah the record will reflect
motion I'm sure we have a motion do we
[5:13:55] have a
Second. Great. We have a motion and a
[5:13:59] second to approve resolution
FCHDA25-03. Stacy, please call the
[5:14:06] question. Ryan, yes. Kibby, yes.
Goldstein, yes. Allan, yes. Held is
[5:14:12] absent. Inken, yes. And script check is
absent. Great. Thank you, Stacy.
[5:14:18] And with that, yes, I'd just like to
thank you for that. Uh, I I will say as
[5:14:26] an organization that's 100% smokefree in
its buildings, we uh we appreciate your
[5:14:31] earlier vote, but that unfortunately
there will be flavored vodka at the
[5:14:36] closing dinner. So,
Julie
[5:14:41] noted what flavor
[5:14:46] with that I would entertain. Having
completed all business of the Frisco
[5:14:52] Housing Authority, I missed a word. With
that, I would entertain a motion to
[5:14:56] adjourn.
Mayor, we like
[5:15:00] to motion. Seconded. All those in favor?
I. We are adjourned. We already
[5:15:07] adjourned the first meeting. or