[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

Town Council Work Session & Regular Meeting - April 22, 2025

Transcript