I call this special meeting of the Board of Trustees to order.
I'll have a roll call.
Tony Beltran Roger Mosley Ronald Sherman John Marble Dennis Stern
Beth Harris Mike Beeson
We're still in public, so you can Erica, would you lead us in the pledge?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic
Um we're going to convene to executive session pursuant to color CRS
24-6-402-4F
for the purpose of discussing personal matter personnel matters related to the
recruitment process and qualifications for the position of town administrator
and to meet with the recruitment firm SGR assisting the town in that process.
Did you have anything to add to that or once we get into executive session, Ken?
No, I don't have anything to add. It does need to be recorded. All right.
Yeah.
Motion to go into executive session. I need a motion to go into executive
session. I move we go into executive session.
I'll second. All in favor? I I I >> passes.
I have to read It's the royal weekend.
» [laughter]
» Um normally
uh Scott used to get us out of executive
session. I don't have the script just saying it was attorney-client privilege.
» Typically, a trustee would make that motion to go out of executive session.
» Okay. Um I thought we we need a motion to go
out? Okay.
I >> I move we exit executive session.
I'll second. All in favor? I. Motion passes.
And that's it? So now we >> We don't read anything else? Um I never
have in the past. I'm not Okay.
Uh it's a little bit little bit different than what
I call to order this regular Board of Trustees meeting for Thursday, April
23rd, 2026. It is now 6:00 p.m. Uh roll call.
Jody Beltran, present. Roger Mosley. Audrey Shirga. John Marvel. Dennis
Stern. Beth Harris. Mike Beeson. We also have our town attorney Kent
Whitmer, our town clerk Erica Romero, Grant,
our deputy clerk, and Chief Smith, our interim administrator present.
Um if you'll join me in a invocation,
um
and obviously the purpose of the invocation
is to humble ourselves to um realize that we don't have all the
answers and that we need as much help as we can get from every quarter.
And so I am looking to the divine
for that help and therefore, heavenly father,
as I just said, we confess our limitations
and we ask you to guide us in all of our decisions
and considering our position, guide us in all our position all of our
decisions regarding the governance of the town of
Palmer Lake. We ask this in your name. Amen.
Um Matt Stefan, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please?
Erica, do we have any presentations or introductions?
No, we We that as a place where we get to that on the next time. All right.
Uh next up is our consent agenda. Items under the consent agenda may be acted
upon by one motion. If in the judgment of a board member
[snorts] a consent agenda item requires
discussion, the item can be placed on the regular agenda for discussion or
action. Uh
the only thing on the congent consent agenda tonight is are the minutes from
April 9th, 2026. Any questions or discussion about the
minutes? I do, Mayor. At the last board meeting, without
declaring a recess or emergency the mayor left his chair and walked over
to the town attorney for lengthy, private, secret conversation.
No mention of the reason was needed provided to the board, no agenda item
reference, no tabletop document provided to board members.
It indicates a clear lack of transparency, which is part of the BOT
mission. To foster trust through effective
communication and transparency. I'm concerned that this is a clear
violation of the OML and board member ground rules.
Therefore, the minutes from the April 9th BOT meeting are incomplete and
possibly missing an important section. I have two requests.
Town attorney provide a legal meeting code, resolution or ordinance that gives
the mayor and or the town attorney the right to ignore the above.
Two, include in public record the conversation, the agenda item, and the
discussion. Thank you. Uh I'll be the first to uh
um respond.
I uh
humbly apologize. It was not the best interest of transparency for me to do
that. Um
it was just a question about
uh process or procedure, but I'll let um Mr. Whitmore fill in the blanks.
» [snorts] >> Yes, so uh Trustee Yurka
uh I did address this with uh the mayor after the meeting, and
um optically it was not good. It's not how
you should um conduct things in a public meeting.
Um legally speaking, I don't believe it was a violation of open meeting law. It
was a minor procedural question. The question involved uh whether or not the
three candidates for planning commission that came in late
um had to be uh considered or not. And my response was it's there's no
authority one way or the other, so it's a judgment call.
Um but I did um admonish the mayor afterwards that um this is something
that should be done in a public meeting. Um if it was more of a substantive
question, then it probably would have been a violation of open meeting law.
I I guess what I said, you know, for me it would be appropriate to call
for a recess to confirm. Well, that's just my opinion.
Thank you. >> Yeah, it and I apologize. It was my
first meeting. Um I was caught a little bit off guard.
Uh in the future, I probably would recommend that course of action.
Does that um Uh I want to make sure it was in the
minutes. Okay. in your discussion. All right. And since this was related to the
agenda item, I I you know, I I defer to the attorney.
Will it be sufficient that it's in these minutes? Yeah. Responding to those
minutes. Yeah, I think so. He said
so. I would just need the attorney's advice.
I would just need to look to Kent um
because I wasn't I wasn't able to transcribe that conversation of how I
would appropriately document that in the minutes.
I think you can document it just as I stated in this meeting. Okay.
Thank you. Excuse me, uh I think there are some
audience members who are having a hard time hearing. So, either maybe need to
move closer to the mic or jack up the audio.
You can't turn it up. Okay, but all of us I think you have to kind of
practically stuff your face in the mic. Or you can Can you hear me?
All right. So.
Thanks.
Um having resolved Audis's question, do I have a motion to um
approve the consent agenda?
Yeah, I'll make the motion to approve the consent agenda.
I second. All in favor? I. I. No opposed, so um
consent agenda is approved. We'll move on to the staff and
department reports. Uh we'll start with our interim town
administrator and police chief, Glenn Smith.
Turn this on.
So, on the police department we're moving towards the 4th of July planning.
So, we're starting to get ready for some of that. And also you will notice around
town some increased parking enforcement. Um the weather's nice, it's getting
warmer, and a lot of people are starting to park in places they don't really
shouldn't park, so pay attention to where you park, please.
Look to see if there's signs, use the kiosk, because they will be out doing
parking enforcement. Um and for admin I have nothing today.
Glenn, can I ask a question? Yep. What what's your policy on people who park
out there in front of them alleys and hang their back bumpers over the state
highway? You know, and it's only a foot
sometimes, but there's pedestrians and uh all kinds of stuff.
My direction to the officers has been cuz I've seen it on the weekends when it
gets busy, um that if it intrudes into the roadway,
they they need a citation. Um and that we've talked also to um
CDOT about some of that area because where they're parking is not a parking
lot. It's um it's right away. So, it's not really a parking area
either side of the road, it's right away. And some of that will be solved
eventually with the sidewalk project downtown and some of that landscape will
change and some of those things will change, but I've been by there when
things stick out in the road and had to ask people to move them. So, yeah, there
there's they should be enforcing them when they stick out that far. Yeah.
Uh Dennis, didn't we have a idea that we're
going to change that to parallel parking at one point?
Parallel parking is included in the design that the planning commission has
been looking at. So, we're not going to move to that until we get to the
downtown. Well, there's no real way to do it at
this point. >> Okay. I mean, I you know, during the 4th
of July, you'll notice that I put cones there and occupy that area cuz I don't
want people park there. So, we park emergency vehicles there. Um I know it's
been convenient for years, but if you just park in the parking lot, it's like
the 20-ft walk to where you would have been parked on
the roadway and much safer or so. >> Right. Yeah. Okay, thanks.
Um under the town clerk.
Mayor, Board of Trustees, um to quickly highlight the memo included in your
packet, I stand for any questions or um pertaining to any of the information.
Uh Planning Commission as noted was canceled last week due to lack of
quorum. We'll continue to plan. We were looking
at a special some dates. I've I've been pulling
availability for all of the commissions. Unfortunately,
we haven't come up with an alternate date
yet. So we'll continue to work with that or work
work to see if we can set a special meeting. If not,
work to establish a quorum for our next regularly scheduled meeting for the
Planning Commission. We do still have two vacant positions
for Planning Commission. At this time,
we're no longer accepting the applications until directed by the
Planning Commission and Board of Trustees. The I know there was some
questions about the last applications. We had received some applications
after the recommendation from the Planning Commission. We have those
applications ready to go to the Planning Commission in hopes that the Planning
Commission again will make a recommendation to the board. At that
time, if the board wants us to reopen or reestablish or how they want us to do
that moving forward, I look to you all for direction pertaining to that.
Any questions on that? Just to be clear on the Planning
Commission Commission. So for them to move ahead with those three applicants
that they have, they need to call a special meeting in order to make a
decision on those three applicants. Is that right?
» Not necessarily a special meeting, but they need to go in front of the Planning
Commission first. And right now we're trying to schedule a meeting whether it
be a regular meeting or a special meeting. Thank you. You're welcome.
Board of Adjustments also has a position available and
we'll work with them to get that scheduled as well or
we don't have any applicants right now for Board of Adjustments.
That is posted though. It is posted. We're continuing to work on proposals
for planning uh services.
As stated in the last meeting, uh DOLA has provided us a list. We have received
communication from two companies that have submitted us submitted proposals.
Um some are willing to service us on an interim basis. Um
and if we want to go for RFP uh for full-time, we're before I get
ahead of myself, we're trying to evaluate those proposals um hopefully
next week and come to the board at the next meeting with identifying a path
forward.
Any questions or directions pertaining to that? Um
Nope. Okay. The fee schedule is forthcoming.
Um we have met with uh legal to work on establishing the priority list. I know
Kent will speak to it in his report and the fee schedule is on that list. Um
so A board workshop um we're looking at a
date in May uh to hold a board workshop with the following items. We did secure
May 29th for the Pikes Peak Office of Emer- with the Pikes Peak Office of
Emergency Management and our fire department. Um
they're going to provide a presentation uh pertaining to all of the above um
with emergency management, fire, evacuation
um emergency preparedness, um evacuation
planning, hazard mitigation um updating our EOP. And so we really
look forward to that. They will be here um
on May 29th. Um
some code enforcement updates. We're continuing uh
to enforce code at Elephant Rock Trailer Park. Again, we have been in contact
with some state agencies pertaining to some issues
um at Elephant Rock. We're continuing to work on that. Um
and move forward with hopefully getting them compliant.
Um CML, we have a board member who was
interested in the CML training. I have uh
registered that board member. And just a reminder, if you did if you do want to
attend the CML conference in June, I will need to know, I believe.
Um I don't know the deadline specifically,
but I want to say it's pretty quick. Um so, check your emails. And if not,
reach out to me and if you're interested in attending.
Um Lastly, I received an update. I have been working with CIRSA, one of the
board's um requirements with me um
taking on the treasurer role was to uh get a bond of a thousand dollars per per
our code. Speaking with Jessica, our CIRSA uh representative, she was able to
educate me on why the why the town of Palmer Lake um hadn't really
um enforced that. We We didn't know She couldn't tell me how long they hadn't
required that, but the reason they hadn't required that bond is our current
policy provides um
it already it provides coverage for any type of um
criminal Let me see if I have the correct
um
criminal coverage. Um You all have a memo on your tabletop
speaking specifically to that. Um We reviewed the requirement in
coordination with the town's insurance provider, CIRSA. Through this review, it
was determined that the current insurance practices have evolved and the
town's existing policy includes a kind crime coverage provision that provides
protection comparable to and broader than an individual bond.
So, how I understood it is if I were to get a bond as the treasurer, that bond
would only protect me. The current coverage we have protects me, the town,
um the town staff, any board or commissioners. Um
in it so basically everybody. Um the town's crime policy provides
coverage to the organization as a whole in the event of fraudulent criminal acts
including situations involving multiple employees. So, not just a single
employee. Um in contrast, uh traditional bond
applies only to a single individual. Um the town of Palmer Lake already
already maintains this coverage as part of its existing insurance policy. This
approach not only provides broader protection, but it also is more
cost-effective. Um so at this time, the way she
explained it to me and based off of her advice,
um it wouldn't be cost-effective for me to get a bond. I'm already protected
under that crime policy. So, it would save the town money with having to
um spend that money. So, um with you know, I support Sirso's recommendation
and look to the board to see if they would consider that which would require
us to update the code to better reflect what our current policy and protections
are in place. Um another pro to that, you know, in the
event obviously when we hire a town town
administrator, it protects me, it protects
everybody involved in finance along with the town administrator where if we had a
thousand-dollar bond for me now and we need one for the town administrator,
again the cost will just go up. Um she did provide uh
a little bit more of a detailed spreadsheet of what that coverage looks
like in the event the board doesn't feel that's enough coverage,
we have the option to up the coverage. So, um she felt it was sufficient right
now based off of the size of town and and our budget and liabilities. However,
I look to the board for direction moving forward with that.
Uh Erica, comment on that. Uh you know, I'm interested in chapter
two and and that is in chapter two. Now, that's just one of the five or six
things that need to get fixed in there. I'm sure that we all agree with what
you've just uh proposed. Uh
we're covered. We have no need for that. But, unfortunately, that's also in the
CRS, I think. Isn't that Attorney Whitmer? There's a
there's a bond requirement in the CRS. Yep. Go ahead.
Yes, I believe that's correct. >> we just need to somehow
get [clears throat] rid of that or accept this other
uh input as the solution to the problem. But, it's not the only thing in chapter
two. So, trust me, when we get to that workshop, there'll be a number of things
that we'll need to fix. Thanks.
Do we need to make a motion, by the way, to
approve that? Yes. Yes. Yes.
Well, I'll make a motion to approve the coverage that we currently have
in replacement for the bond that's required in
town code chapter two. I'll second.
All in favor? I. I. I. No opposed. Motion passes.
I All I have. I have a question for you. Yep. Oh, sorry. Go ahead and finish your
report. I'll come back to the question. Okay. Second, um
we had received some questions from Trustee Harris pertaining to our
website. Uh Christie, who is the project one of the project managers for the
website redesign, provided a memo outlining some information and where
we're at in that in that project along with the answers to uh Trustee Harris's
question. Questions, in the event um you have
further questions or clarifications, we're
kind of just starting off in the process, but we'll continue to provide
updates um and answer any questions as we move forward. But we're super excited
about it. We have a great team. Um we've already, you know, received
some content from departments um you know, again, our our website is
something that has been neglected and and our mission to be transparent and
more um visible, I guess, to our residents.
So, we're we're excited um and
that's where we're at. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that
update. Um
» [clears throat] >> I have a question.
Um at what is it at the next board meeting we're
going to have a swearing-in ceremony for the town attorney with this appointment?
Is usually every It is a oath of office. Yeah. Do you want to speak to that or do
you want me to?
It was supposed to happen before I actually start acting on your behalf, so
Eric and I did it in her office. So, I have taken the oath.
I swore. It's kind of traditional to do it in
I'm fine with doing it again in a ceremonial sense, if you want. Oh,
that's Yeah.
» [snorts] >> Yeah, and just I'm I'm glad It was a
great question. So, normally when we do do it in front of the board,
a lot of the times it's ceremonial because once, like he said, you know,
when I stepped in as deputy clerk, I took it that day in John's office and
then obviously took it in front of you, so.
Um can you s- uh would you be able to summarize the website project um
and where where we're going with that? Cuz the way I read it is going to cost
us $26,000 and we're looking at a total rebuild. Is that Is that the summary? Is
that the conclusion? Yeah, I mean, that's what was budgeted.
This was a project that we were actually supposed to start, I believe, last
October that we haven't, you know, there's some compliance issues that um
we need to meet. It encompasses pretty much a complete redesign, relaunch of
our of our website. Um CivicPlus or yeah, CivicPlus, who um hosts our
website, no longer supports the version that we have. So, we really have no
choice um it you know, they did allow us
um they were very patient with us moving forward because we're already we've
already exceeded their their deadline of how long they can
continue to to keep us active and live. So, um I think there's three left and
we're one of the three. And uh so, when will this
uh project be completed? What's the What's the end date that we'll have a
new website? Yeah, so I believe there's a there's a certain timeline.
I think it's June.
Um Yeah, so in the memo Oh, there it is.
Yeah, June 24th.
So, we've changed the date twice in the last week. Um June of 20 So, the upgrade
is expected to launch in June of 2026. Okay. Yeah.
We were trying we were shooting for May, but
» is there will there be a lot of bugs to work out or is it going to be pretty
much >> No, I think ours is so outdated, we have
to manually update it and kind of rig it to get what we need to be done. I don't
know how else to say that, but um the new website is more user-friendly for
not only the people utilizing it, but the people maintaining it. Um
it all the way, you know, it's just it's a lot more simplified and and
accessible, I would say. >> Hopefully it's it's not too many bugs
that have to be worked out. Yeah, I mean with everything there's probably going
to be bugs, but we'll be prepared to tackle them as they come. We have a good
committee working on it and I feel we're going to be able to
bring the board in the town a good product moving forward. All right. Just
reading between the lines of the memo, uh
that was very thoroughly responded to firstly, so thank you for that. Um they
they they bought bought a content management system, which basically lets
you do very simple uh updates, very easy, very straightforward. Uh very
user-friendly. So it'll be it'll be a lot easier and
also uh the the uh accessibility standards that we
were talking about that I was asking about, so
there's a a standard called WCAG and this is a standard industry standard
standard for compliant or for um accessibility.
And the US government even will set a standard as well as of course
international uh the international community.
So this this content management system will allow this town to remain in
compliance with the most uh the most recently required standard for
accessibility. So it gets it takes away some risk for the town for us to use
this system. >> That's always good. Right.
» Yeah. And I believe the migration there's no
cost, you know, obviously in in 2024 is when we budgeted and paid for
the product. So there's a little bit of it it In another branch of that also,
this is the part where we're going to move to the agenda meeting management
portion, like what I develop your meetings and your um
agendas. Again, that's a complete dinosaur, you know, some of the
issues and and hiccups that we have now on the website HTML and and things like
that, it's because we're so obsolete and behind. So we're moving um we're in
training right now on that new product, which will tie into the website and
and all the other fun stuff. So, I think once it all comes together, you'll
you'll really see a a good return on your investment. Is there any aspect of
this new website that um uh
helps or or moves towards our ability to stream better or do [clears throat]
uh you know Not at this time, completely
two separate. >> Two separate Yeah. Okay.
I have a a comment and a follow-up question on
your report. So, first comment, thank you and the rest of the staff uh
including police for the continued efforts on
uh helping those properties at the Elephant Rock uh
trailer park come into compliance. I know it it can be a
uh a process to get that done. And like you said, you've been
uh doing a lot of due diligence on trying to find different resources to
help folks. So, that is very much appreciated. I know it's uh not an easy
task. The question I had the on the workshop
updates, so [clears throat] we had talked last
time about actually having a workshop to help schedule workshops. Are we doing
that or is this meant to Is that first workshop listed there meant to be that?
Yeah, so the first workshop is the one that um
once we got our attorney retained, as mentioned in the last meeting, I think
my best advice was taking kind of a holistic approach because a lot of the
items kind of overlapped with estab- establishing or reviewing um board board
basics, board roles and responsibilities, um board conduct um
the agenda requests, public comment, you know, redesigning kind of our our
agenda. Those kind of fall all all in one area. I think we would
m- and again, my suggestion would be to start there, and then we can identify um
I know Kent and I have talked of an idea moving forward with how to accommodate
workshops and our business or our regular meetings where I think we can be
a little bit more cognizant of the cost of our
attorney and his fees and and the meetings you know just for full
transparency one of the ideas is having two meetings a month although they're
very important the demand on on staff and and the turnaround of of work is is
hard to keep up with I mean we can do it but
an idea would be to maybe have a regular business meeting a month and then
identify in the second Thursday as like a workshop working meeting where we can
really plan and and work on you know priorities and strategies and
our issues at hand and then prepare the business items moving forward to kind of
move business along a little bit quicker.
So there's a lot of ideas again that's not some I mean you know that we have
but I think that conversation or that again that workshop
would be where we would have the conversation pertaining to the workshops
so Thank you.
Thank you Erica um
Mr. Attorney
Thank you Mr. Mayor um
So Erica and Chief Smith kind of
gave me an overview of how attorney Cropp used to give his report
and so I'm going to try to generally stay along the same outline as
what he would do and it sounds like he would update the board
initially on any pending litigation matters.
This past week Erica connected me with DJ Goldfarb who is
CERSA retained counsel that is handling
two of the CERSA covered claims that the town is involved
in right now. One claim
involves Trustee Mosley versus the Town of Palmer Lake
and it and I as I understand it it involves the
a question of whether or not the mayor was properly installed.
The status according to DJ on that case right now is that
there was a preliminary injunction injunction hearing which was apparently
not granted and there's been no movement on that
case since that action by the court. The other um
case also involves um
Trustee Mosley and um
I hope I pronounced this correctly Roger Miss Brod Brodzik? Okay. Versus the Town
of Palmer Lake and I understand that that is essentially
um some form of a fraud case
and it's been litigated and now it's on appeal
and I understand it's in the briefing stage right now so there's no decision
on that. So that's the update from DJ Goldfarb
on those two matters. um
So since you guys installed me as your town attorney
not complaining but I really haven't taken a day off since then.
It's been crazy. I asked
Erica to put together a spreadsheet of all the outstanding
legal issues that are pending business. And so that's what she's handing out to
you right now. You can see there's 33 uh potential matters on there.
Many of these I've worked on or been briefed on. Um many more I haven't even
touched yet. Uh
I asked because there's such a a volume of matters to deal with
that we've got to do some triage here and figure out, you know, where where is
my efforts going to be directed? What's what's most important? And so,
uh Chief Glenn and Erica went through them
and over on the left-hand side, you'll see where they put a
a one, two, or a three. So, that's how they
they grouped them, one of course being highest priority,
three being the lowest priority. You can see that
about 80% of them are one. So, I uh
you know, without um talking about each one tonight,
I asked if Erica couldn't hand this spreadsheet out to you folks to
take home with you, give some thought to, and then in the
coming meeting,
give us some direction on where do you want us to focus your our attention. I
mean, I think they have a pretty good idea and they're focusing me right now,
but we need input from the board as well.
So.
Uh Quick Sure. Absolutely. When would you like that feedback from the board?
And would you like it in the context of a public meeting?
I think it would be best. Yeah.
There's there's no reason to have an executive session on prioritization.
Yeah. Versus just um making our priorities and
emailing them to uh
Erica to pass on to you? Well, I think it's a policy discussion, Mr. Mayor. You
know, what is giving what is given priority here.
So, it's probably something that should be a collective decision by this board.
Okay, understood. Yeah. If I may, Kent. Um
Mayor, Board of Trustees, on this spreadsheet as well, some of these
priorities, although they're identified as a one, you know, in the in the
status, we tried to best kind of, you know, some of them are
routine and when they come in, you know, we have to get them to Kent. Some of
them we really don't have the flexibility due to um dates or
requirements that we've already exceeded. So, just understand or at
least um be willing to hear feedback from staff of why at that time, if
you're like, why is this a number one priority, you know, it it's not
there's probably reason behind it is how we've determined and and it's we tried
to best describe that under the status, but Actually, that's that actually
speaks to exactly what my next question was going to be, which is, can I can we
get a sense for like, are some of these are we out of compliance or something on
some of these? Like, to me, like a regulatory or compliance thing is
usually top of the top of the list, the top of the top.
» Mhm. Uh and or um you know, uh
it's maybe a revenue generating thing that's pending. That to me seems like
second, but, you know, of course, the board can So, I will say and and
probably about 95% of the ones that are determined one priority, there's some
type of compliance issue. I would have a hard time probably removing any of them
um from a priority one unless Kent legally was able to provide us some type
of extension. You know, some of them are contracts that are already have exceeded
the due due dates. Um
you know, land use issues, obviously, those are
um you know, they've been super patient and
we're past again, um, ADUs, the state's already
adopted the laws there. We've got to implement and and bring our code up to
standards, you know, pertaining to that. So,
um, our fee schedule, we're way behind on on state fees that have increased, so
we're losing revenue there, um, until we get that that updated. So, yeah, um,
we've taken all that into consideration, obviously,
um, when we go more in more detail with this, well, I'd be happy to provide more
information, but just so you're aware, we we spent some time really developing
this list and this is just the list of ones, twos, and threes. The fours and
fives are not we don't need we didn't feel we needed to triage them, as Kent
said, right now.
The other element I'm curious about, uh, whether it was taken into consideration
was the scale of the work. So, is it a,
you know, uh, in my world, we call work like extra small to like a t-shirt size,
like extra small to extra large. And, uh, is it an extra small that we're
dealing with or is it extra bunch of extra larges, you know? That's that's
what I'm kind of curious about and how you triage that based on the size, if at
all. Semantics, I get, you know, so extra small, extra large, we,
um, identified some as routine, um,
and that's kind of how we identified like ongoing or routine contracts, MOUs,
yeah. Yeah, and just to add to what Erica
said, it's
uh, the focus has just been reactive so far.
It's been whatever,
um, you know, is the most emergent at the moment. Okay. And there's been a lot
of emergencies.
Okay, ask can we be mindful, um,
some of these have constraints that will expire if we don't address them
immediately and I think we'll talk more about that later. Majority of them have.
Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah. Okay.
Yeah, just just reminder on there's one item
uh before you came on board where the board
gave direction to revoke the concealed carry gun option to carry in the town
hall. That's under what? So, the way we frame
those, those are ongoing routine resolutions based off of board direction
that local staff can kind of do the legwork and then he'll help
review it and bring it back. All right. forward. I'll I'll send an email
reminder. Yeah.
Okay. Um I'm going to
talk more in the business item that's in the next agenda item about
uh what was discussed at the last meeting with regard to the hearing that
was voted on. Couple of items just in my general
attorney report though that I'd like to touch on before we get there.
Uh a couple or
several of the trustees have reached out to me directly outside of
general meetings and you know, I appreciate um that they want
to have access to me. Um I've tried to communicate though and
I just want to restate it to the board in total that that's probably not an
appropriate um way to utilize me and the reason is that
uh I represent the board collectively
and when one trustee reaches out to me, that's not really the board giving
direction. That's one trustee giving direction and the collective board may
not agree with um me utilizing or using that resource in that way.
That and uh if there's a question uh by one trustee
and it may be something that is uh
in the minds of other trustees and it should probably be brought up at a
general meeting and discussed in the open so that everybody is on the same
page and knows what the questions and the answers are
to the town trip to the town attorney. So I would just respectfully request
that um communications [snorts] towards me be
channeled um at public meetings like this
or through the mayor or through the town administrator
through me.
Um that's
really all I had as far as my general report. Mr. Mayor, I can move to the
next agenda item if you'd like. Uh
unless there's any further questions on your report so far and I think we have
one. Yeah, attorney Whitner, before you move, I have two items I'd like guidance
on. Uh the first one is mayor pro tem.
The CRS in title 31 says that at first meeting the board will select and in our
code it says within 30 days the board will select the mayor will nominate and
the board will select. Uh we lost our mayor pro tem on the 4th
of October. That was in another week that'll be 7 months ago.
So I would like direction or legal advice
for the town to get on with that and uh select or um adopt a mayor pro tem.
In the same light uh the CRS in that same paragraph which is 31-4-303
paragraph 3 it says the board may select a clerk pro
tem to perform the duties of the clerk. Uh 3 weeks ago on Wednesday night we had
a a one-time uh allowed uh grant uh supported one of our
uh meetings and which is perfectly fine. But, we had asked, two of us had asked
for a meeting last December, and Grant couldn't support that meeting.
So, I would just like to make it clear that the CRS does not have any guidance
for a one-time ad hoc clerk. Now, there may I may be wrong about that, Eric.
There may be a provision that you know about that I don't. But, what I would
prefer is that we move forward with a clerk pro tem so
that we've got a deputy who can actually support the board. And
I know there's some training and certifications required, but we had a
program established by Don Collins, which consists of five files attached to
a an email, which I know that our clerk has.
And so, if we can't appoint the deputy clerk with the right authority tonight
or in the next meeting, I would like to understand the training
program, when we're going to get to that point, and what your direction would be.
So, those two items, I would appreciate uh
your input. And doesn't have to be tonight, but I would certainly like to
address this by the next board meeting.
Did you want to You can't
Either way. Okay. Um
Well, I can I can speak to the mayor pro tem issue cuz I've looked at the state
statutes and the town code on that issue.
Um I have not looked into your question about town clerk
pro tem. So, with respect to mayor pro tem,
um I agree with your reading of the town code that at the first meeting of each
year, uh the mayor is to
uh choose somebody with the direction of
the board or the consent of the board. And then, at the state statute level,
which is um a little bit more
uh uh
gives a little more more latitude for choosing that individual.
It says that the uh town board actually has the authority to choose a mayor pro
tem. So,
uh my recommendation would be that a mayor
pro tem be chosen.
And do you mean immediately or could we do that in the next board meeting?
» You could do it at the next board meeting. Okay. And so,
Erica, could you make sure that that agenda item gets on the next meeting?
And with respect to the clerk, I I can look into that by the next meeting.
» needs a little bit more look. I agree. Okay. Cuz there's a training program,
obviously, that's required for that.
And I don't want to really speak to it right now until I consult with Kent.
However, um
I would like to remind the board of the maybe
to review the roles and responsibilities as trustee members and
identify the administrative functions and some functions that in person that
are pertaining to personnel um and how those are designated and delegated um
and that's within my authority um to do so. And and there's guidelines
that walks me through that. So, it's a little bit of a bigger conversation. Um
and I'm happy to discuss that with Kent and he can probably sum it up and and
word it a little bit clearer for you all, but um I'm definitely aware of of
the process of having a deputy clerk and what my requirements are in fulfilling
the role as a clerk um with performing meetings. I would like the board I
respectfully uh request the board um
to understand I make all best efforts when
um requirements such as special meetings uh
are requested to make sure I fulfill it um
best I can. Um and I really am not going to speak any
more to that. Um,
but I will work with Kent um on better explaining that process to the board.
Thank you. Seeing no other questions, uh
our first business item is discussion and possible action regarding
establishment and codification of Town of Palmer Lake hearing procedure
pursuant to CRS 31 4-307. Mr. Whitmer.
Uh, can I make a point of order?
At the last BLT meeting, a vote was taken pursue a hearing regarding a
trustee. And I brought to the board's attention
several serious legal concerns of mine that I didn't feel were addressed in
written legal opinion by our town attorney who advises on a mission stated
the following. Well, we're having open session now, and
so yeah, it was probably a mistake to do an executive session on this issue
previously. That's being remedied. Myself and two other trustees were not
privy to this executive session, have not been provided an opportunity to
review the video recording. In addition, the agenda item indicated
directions to staff would be given, which should have been discussed and
given board [clears throat] concurrence after the BLT reconvened meeting in open
session. So, are there
And the attorney since then has come out with a confidential memo that's not
available to the public yet. However, it talks more about the process
of the hearing rather than whether or not
the investigation was properly authorized,
whether public funds were expended absent a board vote, what process is
required when allegations involve an elected official rather than employee,
and what disclosure process safeguards. So, I
I'm kind of asking is, you know, my fellow board members, do you really feel
comfortable moving forward with discussing how the hearing's going to be
held, [clears throat] rather than whether or not the hearing
or you or even at that point yet?
So, you know, my most obvious way to make I will make
is to direct the town attorney to review and provide written legal opinion of the
circumstances regarding this to ensure legal compliance with statutory
references and to temporarily dismiss agenda item
number five.
Any discussion?
Otis, I I think these are two distinct items.
Tonight is to talk about procedurally codifying
a hearing and what you're talking about, and I
agree with you, is once we get to that point, should we proceed with the
hearing, but I don't think that's what tonight's agenda item is about.
Anybody else? Beth, did you have something?
Um I kind of need more more time to think
about the things that Otis has brought up. Uh
but uh I mean, I'm yeah, I need I need more Understood.
» Yeah, I need more time to think about that.
» So, I agree with um Mike, Otis, and and regards to that uh
this agenda item is not necessarily specific to Roger, although Roger's um
issues are the catalyst.
But, tonight's agenda item is about anytime this might happen to any one of
us in the future.
So, I I agree with Mr. Beason that it there are two distinct things.
Uh so, I think we can actually move forward on both. That Mr. Whitmer, and
he's got something to say about this. Uh,
can do as you ask in regards to creating a
legal opinion. But, we can also go forward with
uh, having this in our town policy so that
in the unfortunate event that it ever happens to anybody in the future,
that we've already got a process in place.
Mr. Whitmer. Uh, Mr. Mayor, you said it very well.
That's what I was going to say. Is they are really two distinct things. And but
they were uh, tonight's agenda item was brought about by last week's or 2 weeks
ago the vote to go move forward. Um,
so, we could uh, look into the questions that Trustee Eureka raises, and I could
give an opinion on that. Um, I obviously wasn't around when those things
occurred. So, it would take some investigation. Yeah, that was my concern
cuz you were when this came up 2 weeks ago, you were only 4 or 3 days that
and I kind of wanted to give you more time to look into it before we move
forward. Yeah. So, I mean, this could take two
paths. Um, and they they could both happen simultaneously.
Um, I think it would be a good thing to have a procedure in place for the future
because um, it you can see what kind of chaos and turmoil it causes when you
don't have a procedure in place. And I could do um,
investigation and a legal opinion and conclude that maybe the process was done
incorrectly or I could conclude that it was done correctly.
Um, I'm not sure I'm really the proper person. I need to
give that some thought. It may be better suited towards an independent
third party, but I'll give that some thought.
Um so, I think we could go ahead with the agenda item
um on that basis that it's more general in scope and not specific to Trustee
Mosley's situation.
I I defer to my fellow board members. If they feel that way,
so be it. Okay.
Um so, we'll do a a little bit of a roll call, thumbs up, thumbs down, Tony. I
Excuse me, what are we voting on? We're not voting. We're We're just giving our
opinions. About what? >> About
proceeding with creating process for the unfortunate situation of a of a
trustee having a hearing and all those issues.
Not necessarily specific to you. >> No, I just want to know which one we
were talking about. >> Okay.
Tony Beltran, I concur with Attorney Whitmer's recommendation. Uh I concur.
Um same. Yeah, I I don't see a problem if it's
just talking about procedure. I agree. I agree. Okay. I agree. As long as we
Yeah, the discussion and possi- possible action. Let's not jump to making a
process until we've discussed it. That's all.
Yeah.
Okay. Um and if I can interject, um the way I
understand it, this is uh to codify requires an ordinance.
And ordinances require 30 days of public comment and stuff like that once we
establish what that ordinance would be. So, this is not anything that's going to
happen uh to tomorrow, you know? I mean, it's
it's going to take time. So, let's get with it as far as I'm concerned.
Correct. Yeah.
So, maybe a little background for the folks in the audience.
Um
Uh at last meeting,
uh my first meeting, the board took a vote to have a hearing
pursuant to state statute to evaluate whether or not to retain
Trustee Mosley for um Summit Land charges that um were
handed to him at that meeting. Uh
after the meeting, um I
looked at uh if there was any
uh guidance, legal guidance, for how to conduct that hearing,
and ran into multiple brick walls. I found a
uh person, an attorney in my firm, uh
a litigator that has had some experience representing a trustee in another
jurisdiction on this exact issue. And so, I tasked him with looking into
this and analyzing it and coming up with recommendations.
So, you received um a memorandum that uh
breaks this down step by step, uh what the authority is that he found,
and what his recommendations were. You saw in the memo um
uh that there uh is scant history of this ever being
done in the state. It's happened like less than a handful of times.
Uh the one Supreme Court case is from the
1800s on this. Uh there was a US Magistrate case in
2012 that um that Magistrate opined on how it should be conducted.
There's been a few small jurisdictions that have codified the procedure for how
they should run in the if it's ever
um to be done in their jurisdiction, but
very few have codified it. >> [clears throat]
» So, the conclusion of that memo is that if you
there are there are multiple competing interests
that need to be addressed. And there's multiple constitutional
considerations that need to be addressed.
And rights protected both on the accused or
the person who's potentially losing their position with
the town and the rights of the town to
uh prosecute that action. So, reading the scant authority that we
have uh together along with other general legal principles for this type
of a situation the conclusion was that you
you need to do more than less. And what that means is you need to have a
judicial like proceeding. Like it like you're in uh say District
Court in El Paso County, for example. Now, that doesn't mean
you have a judge come in, you know, you can hire a hearing officer.
But, it does mean that people uh on both sides of the action need to
be represented or have the right to be represented.
They have the right to uh defend themselves. Uh they have the
right to question witnesses. They have the right to cross-examine witnesses.
You have an impartial person there to make decisions on evidentiary issues.
It needs to be like a court hearing. So,
to do that, um
you've kind of got to lay out the ground rules. And the way you do that is by
codifying them. And so, my recommendation is that it if you want to
still move forward with this process as a board
to give me direction to come up with
a codified procedure which will be open to public scrutiny and
comment and your blessing
and have everybody, including Trustee Mosley
vote for or against it and and put it in place.
As simple as that. Yeah. And then once it's in place, at that
point, then we could move forward with scheduling the actual hearing and we
would have a roadmap for how it's going to be conducted.
Um So, we don't have the specifics in front
of us. We have in front that that memorandum was basically an overview
with with the pros and cons, if you will. Yep.
» And to get a get a uh a document with specifics we need as a board to give you
direction, which doesn't require a motion, I believe, just direction to go
» Correct. forward and furnish us with that document. Right. The vote will be
on the ordinance. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, time wise,
is that something that we could look forward to in the next meeting or is it
going to take longer than that or what's your feeling on that? Um
Well, I have resources at the firm, in particular the person that helped me
with this memo that probably has availability. I don't know if he can get
it done by next meeting, but certainly by the meeting after that, I would
think. Yeah.
Um and and one other thing I'd like to speak to um
uh Trustee Mosley reached out to me um
and asked about whether or not the memorandum that I produced for you
could become a public document and I wanted to speak to that so that
everybody's clear on that. So, I had marked that that document was
attorney-client privileged and confidential and
every document that I send you from me will be marked that way
because it's my job to preserve the privilege for you. However,
you as a board can waive that privilege. So, if you so desire
you hold the privilege, you can waive it, you can make it a public document if
you like. And I believe that that would require a
motion, is that correct? >> Yes.
But, I can't do that. And the reason I put that on there is to
emphasize and underscore to individual trustees, don't disseminate this because
it's a board decision to disseminate it. Very good.
Um it is my personal opinion that let is more
more rather than less like you suggested that um it would be
uh incumbent upon us to have something in place
uh in the event that we do move forward with uh
the issues with Trustee Mosley and or in the event that there is some other
unfortunate issue that we have to address in the in the future. So, I'm a
thumbs up on moving forward.
And we'll take we'll take a a
roll call uh
Can we >> all Can we ask questions first? Sure.
Okay. Thank you. Can I ask you about select parts of
this? Sure. Okay. I just didn't know if I was free to do that. So, in this
letter,
and I mean I'm just asking for clarification because I have no legal
training, so I don't I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. Is it
true that there are two CRSs that talk about removing trustees?
It's the 31-4-307 and the 31-4-501,
which would be the recall. So, I believe there are two
Yeah, that is that's correct.
» Okay. So, and you're advocating we go with 31-4-307.
Um I'm not advocating one way or the other.
» Um I'm just I That was the direction from the board at the last meeting. And
And that was the thing I was hoping we could read read back that motion because
I don't recall the the motion as
I thought it was let's have a hearing, not let's have a hearing to determine
removal, because that's that's deeper in the
CRSs. So, I don't think that that was totally
accurate that we made a motion to remove.
I think the Just a hearing. that was discussed was the removal statute, and
then based on that discussion that referenced the removal statute, the
the motion was approved. Okay.
I'll get back to that then. So, So, then there are two statutes that
remove a trustee. Mhm. So, um I don't think that we've codified
31-4-501, which is the recall.
I looked in I looked and we hadn't codified that.
So, I'm just trying to understand why we would codify one but not the other.
You know, I Trustee Beeson, I haven't looked into the procedure for recall,
but my guess is that's a pretty established procedure, so you're not
guessing. Whereas with the removal statute, there's no guidance.
» Because I think you put in here it's very
it's not used very often at all. So, okay.
Um that leads into my next question. I
think you just answered it. Well, why can't we just Why do we have to codify?
Why can't we just rely on the CRS? But you you put it how complex it is. So,
thank you for So, okay. So, that answers that one.
So, do you know if 307
which is the removal versus 501, which is the recall
in the recall in the 501 it allows trustees
to censure remove committee or liaison assignments,
restrict staff contact, require communication protocols, refer criminal
conduct. That's in the the 501. Do you know if the 307 allows
for the same corrective actions? Because then it would seem like Why why
why do we need two if they do the same thing?
Um I need to find the language and
» And I can send this to Erica or to Glennon I happen to have it open. Do
you? I can read it out. >> read it, please?
So, this is from page 54 of 623 of the Colorado Revised Statutes 2025, so
hopefully I'm referencing the right one. 31-4-307 removal of officers, causes,
notice. By a majority vote of all members of the board of trustees, the
mayor, the clerk, the treasurer, any member of the board, or any other
officer of the town may be removed from office. No such removal shall be made
without a charge in writing and an opportunity of hearing being given
unless the officer against whom the charge is made has moved out of the
limits of the town. When any officer ceases to reside within
the limits of the town, he may be removed from removed from office
pursuant to the section. A municipal judge may be removed removed during his
term of office only for cause as set forth in section 13-10-105-2
CRS. And on the next page there's some source
citations. Uh do you want me to read the source citations? No, I think No, I
think No, I think that um confirms my suspicion without looking at
it again. Um it's either removal or no no removal
under that statute. >> Thank you. Um you know, at the last
meeting what I did uh offer as options was anything along a spectrum from do
nothing to this removal statute. Okay. And just for clarification of the 307
that she just read, it's it's a it's binary. It's either you're removed or
you're not. So, I don't see how that's fair if
if the
if the behavior lies in the middle where a censure or
restricting staff contact would would serve the purpose. And I don't know I
don't have the evidence, so I don't know where it is. So, for us to say binary
you stay or you go seems I just I don't understand how why we
would do that. Right. And and that's the board decision. I mean Cuz I'd like the
full spectrum. I'd like nothing to removal, but it seems like it crosses
307 and 501. Right. Okay. So, at at at
present the decision that's been made is to
proceed with 307. But
you're a board. Yeah, what if it You can do
» So, I guess my question is without knowing the evidence of a given hearing,
how do we know which CRS to use between 307 and 501?
And I'm just asking for clarification cuz I really don't I don't know.
Well, I think the recall is is more of a citizen
» [clears throat] >> initiative.
» Correct. And
» But that gives us so much more latitude. Well, so the recall is a citizen
initiative and maybe the distinction here is
the the 307 remedy is a board remedy
and the accusations right now involve potential violations or harassment
against town employees who you are responsible to oversee and protect. And
so, that's why that removal statute is probably more applicable for this
situation. Great. Okay, thank you.
Attorney Whitman Attorney, can I ask you a question? Yes. So, I remember we got
ready to take that vote and of course things were a little bit in turmoil. You
were brand new. Um
and I think I asked you a question, what are the options? And you said you can do
anything. You You didn't You didn't provide any options.
Um I expected that you would have said
nothing, letter of reprimand, censure, removal, you know,
you know, give us the the normal list and you did not do that.
So >> I think I did. Well, I don't I Thank you
and I would like to look at the video, but I don't recall that.
Maybe it's irrelevant. The The The point is is that I don't think we all agreed
that it was a vote for either removal or nothing. I think that the vote really
was for a hearing sort of undefined. And
at least that's my recollection. And and I would be happy to go back and
and get a transcript of the of the BOT and see if that's correct or not
correct if we captured everything, but but I I do think that it's not just uh
dismissal or nothing. Now, what whether you agree with that or
not, I would like some guidance on that. Maybe we can talk about that the next
meeting. Well, I think if it's
I I mean your 307, those are really the two options at the conclusion of a
hearing. Okay. It's either yes or no.
Okay. So, does a I'll go back and look at the video and see if I get the same
thing out of it. Thank you. So, does a new ordinance
uh of the town of Palmer Lake have to be tied to a specific state statute or is
do we have the latitude to uh expand the consequences, for
instance, and make it non-binary, if you will?
Um
I think I'd have to know the specifics of what you're thinking, Mr. Mayor. Like
» Well, I'm thinking what's been stated that, you know,
it can be nothing uh which you know, not removing is
nothing or it can be anything from censure to uh
removal. >> Yeah.
Yeah, so a town code can be more restrictive than a state statute.
So, that could be part of your um
recommended document to us.
» Yes. And that would be like a a our direction to you, right, to
» Yes. uh formulate something that would give
us some options. Yes. Right. Yeah, I I would like to just make a comment on
that. Can I quote just one little half of a sentence from your
privileged document? Um if it's okay with the board.
Yeah, the the the sentence was was very I think it was an excellent sentence. It
said, "This procedure should be built in a way that any trustee in the future
would allow themselves to be subject to it because it's fair." And I think I
think that's the perfect sentence, but I do think that that means it can't be
just one or zero. It has to have a range of
outcomes. And I think that's entirely possible. Okay. Okay.
And then Mr. Mayor, I've got two more quick ones if I could.
Thank you. This This helps a lot. Um on page two,
this is just um
So, it says um and I think you alluded to this
the decision is by a majority vote of all members of the Board of Trustees. Do
we have to be all seven or a quorum? All seven.
» All seven. Okay. And Yeah, it's not good enough to just have a quorum.
» Thank you. Perfect. Okay. And then on page
eight, um
would the town be required to pay for reasonable attorney fees
for the trustee in the future who has been accused of
wrongdoing? And you went into that quite lengthy and
I appreciate that. But I don't have a good feeling that
It'd be my recommendation that they do. That we do pay for an attorney. Okay,
thank you. And then my last question Well, I have
two more. On page 11, it says the power to
subpoena witnesses. Can you describe that? Who subpoenas
the witnesses? So, it needs to be a judicial-like proceeding.
Um I didn't land firmly on every single
judicial-like uh procedure that I think should go into an ordinance. Um I was
kind of waiting to get direction from the board whether they wanted me to
really dive into this. And if at that point I would come up
with what I think, you know, based on further research
would be an appropriate laundry list of available litigation
devices that are available. Okay. And my my final question is, the
decision is subject to judicial review. Is that you were talking about we would
hire a hearing officer or is it a judge? >> No, that means that
definitely one part of the procedure needs to be that the proceedings are
transcribed or recorded in some respect so that if
either party doesn't like the outcome, there's an ability to appeal. And the
ability to appeal would probably be to a regular court. Okay. And could a court
confirm or overturn? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor. Sure.
Any other questions for Mr. Whitmer before we take our
our poll?
Dennis, I would just like to say I would have no objections to opening up the
JVAM memoranda.
Maybe one caution is that is it half of it is sort of about the process and the
307 stuff. And the last four pages are specifically
about me, which is is fine with me. But the the problem is is that we can't
write a code for a specific case. The code needs to be written for a general
case. And so, if we do open it up, I would not want anybody to be confused
that we either agree or disagree with all of those points.
But I'd be perfectly happy with it to be open.
Okay. Well, let's address um
the question on the table first and then we'll address the question on
uh publishing the memorandum second. So, the question on the table is if we
wanted to direct Mr. Whitmer to provide us with
a document that details the
proposed ordinance. I think
there should be public comment before taking a vote.
We're not taking a vote. We're giving We're giving direction. So, we're not
taking a vote.
The only question I have is that is are we going to be able to
provide some feedback to the town attorney on Absolutely.
before you finalize the document. Absolutely.
Yeah, I would um
Mr. Mayor, you said, "Well, how long's this process going to take?"
Um realistically, it's going to take months
because there's going to be a draft. You folks will review it.
We'll talk about it at a meeting, maybe two meetings. You'll give me comments
back. It'll be revised.
It'll take several meetings to get to a point where you're comfortable.
Understood. Yeah. So, Mr. Mayor, are you talking about
giving direction um with the baseline such that the full spectrum of actions
are available to us? Yes. Okay, thank you.
And your I'm sorry.
The other question I had was this pertains to trustees only.
In my In my thoughts or my opinion, this could apply to appointed officials as
well. The same process. So, the the statute
um applies to
which I think the code I mean, it will also be applicable to
um the removal of the mayor, the clerk, the
treasurer, any member of the board, or any other officer of the town.
So, it'll apply to all those folks. Yeah.
I just noticed that you said trustee. That's that's why I asked. Oh, well.
Yeah. That wasn't the intent.
So, before we give direction, [clears throat] do we
want to give some guidance also on the specific things we would like to see as
the the
um you know, options for
uh
you know, options for um I don't know if you I hate to use the word punishment,
but uh actions that the board could take in
the event a uh
you know, a trustee is is found in a found to guilty of a
um in a in that hearing or in a hearing. Do
we want to provide him a list of options that we would like to add to our
ordinance? So, he can draft those. I think that
that's perfectly fine. So, I think uh I think one of the
options of course was nothing, right? Which is already in the state statute.
Then uh I think a letter of reprimand seems reasonable.
Uh and then censure. The other thing I would like to see Can
you um excuse me for interrupting, but when you
say censure, exactly what does that do? >> It's a formal
at least verbal uh warning, if you will, to the trustee
that you know, they
don't do that again. >> [laughter]
» So. I mean, it's it's kind of it's
relatively light, but it's it's an option, right? So.
Uh we're try I mean, I think I think what I'm hearing is people are trying to
give ourselves We're trying to give ourselves more options rather than
fewer, right? Understood. The other thing I would like to see is
um let's say we issue do something, like some form of
reprimand or whatever the thing is the board decides.
Uh and then what happens if it happens like there's
a repeat offense? Like what then? Like in in increasing like is there an
automatic trigger to ever increasing uh punishment or you know, something
like that? Um and then of course removal is an
option. What are other folks' thoughts?
Well, in in 501 it it lists it pretty clearly censure, remove from committees,
restrict staff contact, require communication protocols. I think if we
stay in line with 314501 and then add to that, maybe that's a
good baseline. I would agree.
Yeah, that would make it less uh less complicated. We could
reuse that. I do I still would like to see some sort
of like trigger like progressive
you know, uh
I don't know how to phrase it. Like some sort of progressive punishment or
progressive progression of uh You can't really do a trigger unless you
know >> Sorry. you know what the allegations or
the charges are. What? I can't hear you. What I'm saying is you can't really
trigger something unless you know what the offense is.
» Well, Yeah, but if you find somebody guilty of something
Yeah. It's not tailored toward any specific
» we're giving the attorney direction and he'll have to be the one to come up with
the wording and the appropriate >> ness of that particular device. So, I
think we don't need to get too far into the weeds in this at the moment. We'll
have the opportunity We'll have the opportunity to parse everything that he
brings back to us.
Did you have something to say, Tony? No, sir. Okay.
Um we have other comment.
Can we read the >> read
» Thanks, Dennis. Sorry.
» The Board of Trustees values public comment on issues relevant to town
government. To permit the fair and orderly expression of such comments, the
Board will adhere to the following rules for public comment. Whether for an
agenda item or during public comment for non-agenda items brought by the public.
A speaker must be recognized by the mayor to step to the podium, sign in,
use the microphone, state name and um
place of residence for the record, and address comments solely to the Board as
a whole. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes,
cannot pool time with another, and each speaker may
only speak once per topic. Civility and respect is required. Comments should not
be directed to town staff, individual Board members, or to public members.
Comments or disruption for from audience members not recognized by the mayor are
prohibited. Points already made should not be duplicated. Only written comments
limited to one page will be permitted. Public members are also invited to
submit comments by email to be distributed to the Board separately.
Note that comments submitted to the Board are public record, and please
understand that the Board will listen and consider public comments. However,
members are not required to discuss or take action on your comment, but may
refer it to staff or a future and/or a future meeting for discussion.
Amy Hudson, Palmer Lake resident. Couple uh co- questions. Um if this is going to
take several months, how much money is that going to be? Is that going to be
more than the 25,000, 30,000 that a recall takes?
And um hiring a special judicial person, that's
going to cost money. Each
the defendant, if we're providing the defendant a lawyer, how much is that
going to cost? And then in the meantime, depending on your scale of of censure or
whatever, how do you make your uh employees feel safe
in the meantime? Thank you. Good questions, and Mr.
Whitmer, can you Do you have any way to address the money issues that she
raised?
Uh I don't know if I can quantify it off the cuff, Mr. Mayor. Um
I have done a lot of litigation over the years, and it's very expensive. So
I I mean, I know that's not helpful. Um but it it will be I mean, I can give
it some thought and give you a guestimate on a range at the next
meeting, but I don't have a number for you right now. I believe that's the best
we can uh expect. So thank you, and and I'll look forward to hearing that next
meeting. Or may I make a comment? Sure. So the specifics
are not about We don't know the allegations. I think I
thought what we're doing here was making a code for all future
aberrations of behavior. >> though, that
um that
this will um very likely apply to the current
allegations. So um
I think that this is relevant information. And yes, sir. However,
our attorney's opinion on page four indicates that this ordinance that we're
talking about should be based not on any particular removal proceeding. We can't
talk about any Understood. I I So Do we want a policy or not?
Well, I do, but I would also be interested to know
what kind of money it's going to cost.
Okay, but but bringing it into context of a recall is not germane to this
discussion. Because we're not talking about a recall
right now. We're talking about So
So it's apples and oranges. Do we want to have
Do we want to codify this? Then we have to incur the expense at one
time because it's for future. And if we're worried about recall, that
that's not germane. I'm sorry.
Well, to say that we're worried about it, I think is is um
is not necessarily the right term, but you know, obviously we have a citizen
that's concerned about it. And I respect that very much and we need to protect
town staff. However, in the future, what if an aberration
by one of us doesn't raise to level of recall. It's you know, we can't look at
every eventuality, but we can do a blanket
code. And that's That's what I thought we were doing here. Well, we are doing
that. So, um
So how would you like us to proceed?
» I think we're I think we should proceed as exactly what we're doing.
And yeah, it's going to cost money if we want to do this, but I think it's money
well spent for the future. That's all. I just I I just think that it goes against
» been nothing said that depending on the cost of the money that we won't do it.
But the the But But the reference to a recall is
specific to Roger Mosley. Yeah, but Mike, just separate the two things.
That's what I'm trying to do. >> Attorney Whitner said that we would do
the code or he was going to do the code. Give us a
And that's some nominal cost. It's the judicial proceeding against me
that costs the ton of money, okay? And we're not approving that right now. That
we're setting that aside sort of until we get this document and adopt
[clears throat] it. And so when we get that, we can make a better decision. I
don't think we have to compare dollars and dollars tonight. Okay?
And I and I appreciate the attorney's input on that. I think he's absolutely
right. And having a code is useful even if it's never used. At least you've got
something to fill a hole that obviously we have.
My turn? Yes, ma'am. Trina Shook.
Good evening. I want to focus
» State your uh name and address again, please.
Trina Shook. I don't feel comfortable stating my address for the record.
I'm a Tri Lakes resident. Um
So, good evening. Um I want to focus on one question.
What is the standard being applied here? The allegations against Trustee Roger
Mosley describe a raised voice.
Okay, so this is not uh open for discussion. We're not talking
about the specific allegations to Roger Mosley. We're talking about creating an
ordinance for removal of any officer or trustee, not him specifically. I have
the right to make a comment on whether or not
we >> this hold a hearing
» this comment at the end of the meeting. You can make the comment at the end of
the meeting. This comment period is specific to this business item, not
public comment in general. It's specific to this business item. This has to do
with Roger Mosley specifically.
» Yeah, yes, it does. Your comment does. But, this discussion is about the code
that creates the process. >> Well, my comment is before you vote on
whether or not to do a
trial on Mr. Mosley, I would like to speak.
» that. There is no vote for that right now or
tonight. Thank you.
Good evening. I'm Katherine Gale, chief legal counsel for integrity matters.
And Mr. Mayor, you did bring up that this code would be applied to Mr.
Mosley, so therefore the previous comment was valid based on the door that
you opened. I've made I brought up the fact that it would possibly be
applied to Mr. Mosley because there are legal questions that were raised by
um Trustee Yurka, and but I also made very
clear that this is about any trustee and any officer in the future, not just
specifically about Trustee Mosley. And the discussion right now is about this
ordinance, not about Trustees Mosley's allegations and possible hearing in the
future. I understand that. >> Thank you.
» I also find it fascinating that when I said that we should have public comment,
you said no, and the next thing former Trustee Hudson got up and made a
comment. >> What I said no to was that we were going
to have a vote. We were just getting a consensus for direction.
Okay. There are legal defects requiring the
termination of the current removal process, and also the ordinance that you
propose to draft. Under CRS 31-43-07,
it only governs removal. This is a statutory town. This is not a home rule
town. You cannot change the parameters of 307. My suggestion would be
a code of ethics with a continuum
of censure, apology, whatever, and then at the end of that say, "And should
these things fail, we will resort to state law 307."
However,
» [clears throat] >> the governing statute requires a charge
in writing and an opportunity for a hearing.
We have not seen publicly a charge in writing,
nor is there a hearing. The materials provided consist of
generalized summaries and conclusions, not specific factual allegations
supported by evidence. Without disclosure of the underlying
facts, no meaningful hearing can occur. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding
implicating constitutional protections under Article 2 of the Colorado
Constitution, including due process. As [clears throat] recognized in the
town's own legal analysis, additional procedural safeguards must be codified
prior to proceeding, and the statute alone is insufficient to
ensure constitutional compliance. Those safeguards do not currently exist. There
are also serious concerns regarding the authority under which this process was
initiated. Municipal powers must be exercised in accordance with statutory
authority under Title 31. The engagement of outside entities, including
employer's counsel, appears to have occurred without clear authorization
from the board or a codified municipal municipal authority, which to this date
doesn't exist. Actions taken without lawful authority cannot form the basis
of a valid proceeding. The integrity of the investigative
process is also in question. Efforts were made to provide relevant
information to the investigation and to request clarification regarding its
statutory basis. The efforts were acknowledged but not followed,
raising concerns about completeness and neutrality. These issues have been
previously brought up by Integrity Matters to the board April 1st and April
14th, placing these concerns before the board prior to this proceeding. Taken
together, lack of specific charges, absence of codified procedures,
questions regarding statutory authority, and an incomplete investigative process
are fundamental defects in this process. The only lawful course is to terminate
the current removal process. You cannot make a law and then
retroactively apply it. And move forward once
the ordinance is codified for the town of Palmer Lake.
You've all sworn an oath to the Constitution of Colorado and to
the United States. It's important to be in compliance. Due
process matters. Thank you. >> [applause]
» THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER
I AM CARA MCVAY, Tri-Lakes resident. Have one question.
Um does this process apply to only the
trustees or does it apply to um other town staff that have
been involved? >> we just answered that question a minute
ago uh per uh Trustee Yurkus's uh question, it applies to
trustees, the mayor, and any town um
officers, which would include um the attorney, the administrator, and the
clerk. And the judge. And the judge. And the And the judge? And the treasurer,
but no town employees. Okay, so not the same
thing. >> animal. Okay.
Karen, if you're asking a question like the
uh chairman of the planning commission as an as an example, no, they have
protections other where other places in the code. Okay. Thank you.
Hello, Kathy Keeler, 605 Academy Road. I just wanted to bring forth um on Beth's
suggestion of having progressive steps of
consequences, I think with
the nature of the units we have working together here,
that the more defined you make these consequences
and stipulations, the better off we're all going to be, so it can't be looked
at as being subjective. If this person does this, they get a a censure. If this
person does it, they get something else. So, I think it has to be
very defined and have very drawn out or not doesn't have to be
drawn out, but very defined steps of progression.
Thank you.
Seeing no other public comment, um does the board have any further
questions? >> [snorts]
» I wonder if the attorney can give an opinion based upon the uh
comment from the attorney from Integrity Matters.
Uh probably not at this time, Trustee
Harris. That That was a lot to unpack. Um but if it's the board's Well, the
board has already given uh Mr. Whitmer uh direction to follow up on the
legal issues that were raised by Trustee Yurka. So, I don't know that there's
um any question here. Uh Trustee Yurka, were the issues that
you raised the same as the ones that uh the attorney just brought up? Yeah, I
think most of them are. They might have some additional ones.
But I I know they've sent to all the board
members uh an email outlining their concerns.
But I think the attorney probably should have.
I believe that he is in in possession of those emails.
I am. Um I guess to be clear, is that the direction of
the board that simultaneously with the creation of
this new code section to handle procedure and hearing, you want me to
look into the issues raised by uh the speaker and Trustee Yurka? I was
under the impression that we had already given you that direction, but if not
» Okay. Yeah, I thought I thought we had cuz
There's separate There's two separate issues. Right.
» Okay. Right, that's true. wanted to be clear. The main concern I have is that
all the things that you brought up and all the things that she brought up are
all addressed. Oh. So, I don't know if there's like any
Yeah, I don't know. I don't disagree. I I just kind of read the code and the
ordinances and whatnot and I Okay. do my best guess and that's why I say in my
opinion. Okay. All right, then. Okay. I'm fine. I
understand the direction. Thank you. Can I make sure I understand it?
We have two things. Go write the code. That's one thing.
The second thing is go investigate whether the hearing that was voted on on
me if was legally done and should require more uh uh motions
and votes or not and and how that will proceed after we get the code. Is that
correct?
Yes, I understand that to be the direction.
Uh therefore, um
just to clarify, we are giving him direction to give us a document with all
the details of a proposed ordinance in regards to the process
of uh
uh hearing of whether it's the uh member of the Board of Trustees or uh
any town officer. Right. Correct. Yep, that's the first thing.
All right. Yep. Mr. Mayor,
can I add something? Yes.
While I understand and everybody understands the need to move very
cautiously, I would also
request that the board, while moving cautiously,
move swiftly. Okay, this has been ongoing for a while.
Well, I understand, but there Excuse me, there is no public comment at
this point. But there are staff involved with the issue as well as trustees.
So, I would ask you to consider the fact that drawing this out for an extensive
amount of time incurs cost and it also incurs stress on
town employees. And that's all I'm going to say about that. And the other Well,
the other thing I will say is that this board has a a town attorney.
So,
we have a town attorney now. So, those
folks that come to the podium who are attorneys are not representative of the
board. And we should pay attention to our town attorney and leave them to
integrity matters as that's what they want to do.
I believe that all of the board agrees
with you that we don't need to drag our feet.
Um unfortunately uh we are somewhat at the mercy of
how things move in the legal world.
And so um
and perhaps there is the possibility of a special meeting once we get the
ordinance draft [snorts] or however it might work. So, we can address that uh
once we see the draft and or you know, are informed that the draft is available
to us. And um but again, that takes board consensus in
terms of scheduling etc. Yes.
Yeah, I don't know that it was an attack other
than just an opinion. So, Mr. Mayor, Board of Trustees
Um if I could just ask a question uh
pertaining to the document. I believe that Trustee Mosley I think that and I
could be completely wrong. Last meeting Trustee Mosley handed me a document and
said the board was emailed this document that you wanted in the public record. Is
that the same document that you were having
uh Kent
that that you guys are discussing for Kent to review and respond to?
Is was it dealing with personnel? Well, I
No, I don't believe that that's what we're talking about.
I don't think so. Cuz that's the only document I've received from Integrity
Matters since the last Oh, I I know what you're talking about.
The one that we thought was not entered into the record previously.
» It wasn't entered into the record. >> Yeah, that's that's what Kat was talking
about was the April 1st and April 14th emails that we all received and I think
that I handed to you to enter in the record. Yeah.
So, procedure won't allow me to I mean that that's not something to enter into
the record cuz we did not discuss it at the meetings. Right? But obviously she
has emailed you guys all individually. Right. Um I would like Kent to give
advice on how what is the appropriate way for trustees to receive information
uh pertaining to personnel or personnel complaints to ensure that we are
handling it correctly from the employment standpoint and then the
trustees standpoint moving forward because if it becomes a public record,
there's several things in there that are that are personnel and I'm not HR and
I'm not in that area, but I'm not quite confident on how I
handle that. Maybe Erica, just wait just a second.
» Before we entertain it. >> That's another item.
We've already approved the document. Is that correct? I believe that we've given
attorney Whitmer So, I don't have that document. Excuse me. And number two,
we've approved him looking into legitimacy of the vote
we took in the hearing on me per um
trustee Erica's Correct. Correct. Yes. The number three is I had made an
opinion that I didn't mind having the privilege document made public.
» And we haven't decided on that. >> Right. That's the third thing. And then
the fourth thing is what Erica is talking about. They're all different
items. Yeah, so if I'm hearing it correctly and is you handed me a
document last meeting that had concerns pertaining to
personnel. Is that accurate? Okay. It sounds like
the rest of the board, whether they have received that document altogether or
individually, have received that document. That's my understanding, yes.
You are now discussing that document in a public forum
pertaining to personnel or giving direction to the attorney
to investigate that. Is that the proper protocol when we I don't know that we've
been discussing that. I don't think so. I think Well, that's what Kat
Erica raises a good question. How do we get that document into the record?
That's all. That's what the question is. And how do we appropriately accept a
document because there's certain things That's a fair question. Yep. Is it And
what's that process when it's on a topic that
I mean, if I thought that was a reasonable document and I got up to the
podium and I read it or said, "Hey, here's the document. The title is,
please put it in public record." Would that be sufficient or do I have to go
through the whole document in order to get it entered?
It wasn't an item at the Like, I can't just take a document and put it in the
record. Yeah, I I agree.
» Yep.
I think that if um it's presented in a public meeting
and offered to the board uh to become a part of the record
the board can choose to accept it and place it at the public record.
I'd like to make a comment I I've been It has
been alluding to. I've gotten emails from citizens and
concerning allegations and complaints about town staff.
And I was going to bring it up in doing board reports to
set aside an agenda item to discuss how do we handle these?
Mhm. And we just kind of urge them to wait to
Please. You know, I get it, but you know, I'm
not the appropriate person to act on it. And I know some of the other board
members have gotten them as well. So, the question is what do we do with that?
Yeah. I don't believe it's in our purview to
be discussing town employees and and uh Yeah. And uh
Well, it's not always town employees. It could be town officers. Well, we have to
separate the two. We can't We can't include the town employees in any of our
discussions, in my opinion. >> been
primarily against town officers. If the document involves town employees
and then I think it needs to go to the town
administrator first. >> and I do that, but if it's a town
officer, I've held held on to it until I had a chance to bring it up in
discussion tonight. >> And if what I said previously
you interpret it as meaning complaints against uh town employees,
that's not my intent. I I thought the complaints would be
what we're talking about is complaints against town officials. Right. Yeah.
Personnel is a different matter. Yeah, not not personnel. I
cuz I tell town administrator it's his responsibility.
Well, the third um before we address number four of Mr.
Mosley's list, the third was whether to um
cuz we've addressed one and two. The third was whether to make the
confidential memorandum in regards to uh his summary of the codification of the
process procedure for a hearing
whether to make that public or not. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Mayor, I don't believe that we should release
page nine because it identifies a possible
accuser and I don't think that's right to put them in the public.
So, page nine at the bottom. Okay. I don't believe we should release that.
For this the town's staff's protection.
Understood. Thank you. Mike, I think it's a good point.
I wouldn't want to shred the document. I don't think it's that important anymore
because we've now separated my case from the
the code stuff and you're going to go off
and do that and so we probably don't even need to refer to that privileged
document now because it's a it's it's multi
faceted. It's not just on the code, so. I would agree with you. Yeah, probably
okay not to release it. All right. Any other discussion?
I said I agree with him that it's not that it doesn't need to be released.
I guess at what point do you whatever you ordinance working on
working on be released to the public prior to it being official ordinance for
hearing? So, there's a procedure for adoption of
ordinances and they need to be published.
Okay, and everything that But that's the final product. Everything that he's
going to suggest has been covered in general in this memorandum. So, it will
be made public and effect at that point in time. I'm
just wondering about are you going to are they public going to have
opportunity comment on the proposed final product of the ordinance or not?
Is is my question. Yes, prior to adoption it'll be part of the agenda and
packet. Okay. Yeah, I think it has to be made available to the public for 30 days
anyway. Well, that's I think So, like I think 30
days after we approve it and then No. No, it's like 30 days before we can
approve it, right?
After. Oh, my bad. Okay. So, I mean I think you have a good
question, which is, you know, how much time will we have to review it? You like
the drafts and I mean we can always if you if we get a draft and the board
says, "Oh, this isn't quite what we want." And you
can always tweak it and then send it back for revision and until we get what
we want. That's that's the public. I don't think that the public is
pretty interested in this. Yeah. I don't disagree with you. So, is your
question then does the public have
opportunity to remark on the draft? before it becomes
final. So, your question is does the opportunity does the public have an
opportunity to remark on the draft? Yes. Okay.
And we just told by the attorney that yes, they do.
Yes. Is that correct? Yes. So, could we can we redact
the references to the the alleged There won't be any
references in there If So, we're not going to for the
ordinance. Okay. And we're not going to release this. No. Okay.
So, that's number three. >> Three and uh uh
And then number four in regards to the email or memo or document about
personnel, I I don't believe that if it has to do
with personnel, that it should be >> I I've got a few but I I passed them on
to uh Mr. Blunt. We're concerned about town
officials. Okay. Uh and I wanted to bring it up at the board reports that we
need to have a discussion on how to handle those.
Which I think is kind of a moot point because
this ordinance will cover that. Correct.
» Okay. So, if it's a moot point, then we can
move on.
Correct? Correct.
Business item um
number six. >> Just staff direction. No. Okay.
Business item number six, ordinance number 02-2026
prohibiting use of graywater and installation of graywater systems.
Um do we need to
uh give any background in regards to this or is it is the floor belong to
Chaz? All right. And Chaz can come up. You can
either come up to the podium, Chaz, or over whatever is easiest.
And I just want to before Chaz gets going, um
Chaz is going to speak on on graywater and he has another item that he just
wants to speak on that that is related to water as well. Okay.
» If the board would allow. Um and he'll get to that at the end. I don't have
much in the in the way of graywater outside of what I covered in the last
meeting. Would you like me to go over that again
or Yeah, Chaz, I have I have I'm sorry, go ahead. Briefly, I think so. Yeah,
just one comment. In the paragraph that ends with is prohibited, you know, where
it says new construction blah blah blah is
prohibited. It's not real clear that a new residence on a well would be able to
do gray water. I mean, that implies it, but I don't think so. I don't think it's
stated as clearly as
» I mean, I got the gist cuz I know what you're talking about, but I I just would
like to have that slightly better to say that if that new house is on a well,
then they you can opt in to the gray water system.
Okay. Um I don't think I have the right um
paper here or the right memo.
But I thought we put in a uh wording
uh that was very specific to Palmer Lake water, public water systems was. It's
just that the the wording is sort of like a double negative, and so I would
like it to be more clear. I'll get you the later.
» Okay. Okay. But with that one caveat, you you did good. Okay.
Trustee Mosley, I I helped with this. I I drafted this ordinance, and so we
uh tweaked it so that a person on a well
would not be encumbered by this ordinance.
» Right. And the language that I put in there was
that uh basically um it pertains to
uh any system that has the potential for intermingling with the public water
system, and a well can't intermingle with a public water system.
» Right. And that's as soon as it ends with is prohibited, right? Right. Yeah.
Yeah, the the previous part of that I would like it to say, but if you're on
a well, just clearly, if you're on a well, this doesn't apply. That's all.
» [snorts]
» No question? I've got nothing further as far as gray water is concerned.
Okay, so this is going to require a vote.
So, let me read this proposed ordinance.
You may.
Matt Steffin Circle Drive. Um
The way that most of the permits for wells in the town are written,
um if the town expands its water district
to within a certain distance of an existing well, they are required to cap
their well and join the water district of the town.
So, how do we address somebody who is on a gray water system from on a well
and then is required upon expansion of the town's water
system to become part of it?
If they're exempted and allowed to build a gray water system.
Hm. Thought it's worth discussion. >> Thank you.
» Can you state how many times this has happened in the past?
I'm just teasing. >> [laughter]
» No, there are no past examples. Just thought it was worth mentioning. It
seems like a valid point, Mr. Whitman. Yeah, was not aware of that.
Probably need to address it. All right. Um we'd need direction on how to address
it, though.
Yeah, Attorney Whitman, part of that problem is the investment a homeowner
might wait might make in a system like that and then to be directed to cap it
or something, uh that's an issue that ought to be
uh covered. And you know, right now I think our well permits, as well as our
taps, are about $20,000. And so, it's probably something in the
range of double that. I don't know.
Well, my my initial opinion is that it would behoove us to
um prohibit it altogether with that being possible.
So, that we don't uh so that we don't force a consumer to
spend money that we're going to then therefore force him to unspend it
at great expense. So, anyway, that's just
first impression.
Marty? Martha Brotzik, 551 Highway 105. Just a
word of caution. Just like STRs and before they were legal and people had
them, talked to PPD
in 2010 about gray water.
And they said, "Ooh, please don't do that."
» [clears throat] >> I said, "Show me the code."
"We don't have code." It's been what, 15 years?
There are people out there that have gray water systems. I'm just cautioning,
okay? It's just there's nothing that says you can't do
it. So, that's another twist to the problem.
Thank you.
Didn't this come about by some sort of a state statute that gives us the right to
opt in or opt out of a gray water >> Yes.
» Yes. situation? Yep. So, there is something out there.
Well,
Well, but it only came in January. >> require us It doesn't require us I
understand. All I'm trying to do is make a point just like Mr. Steffin did that
there are idiosyncrasies with this that nuances that you kind of have to pay
attention to. I'm talking to the county policy that's
over 15 years old. The state statute is much more recent.
» I understand. >> And and it's not all or not It's either
you opt in or opt out. I'm just saying there's a lot of scenarios you got to
think about.
Mr. Mayor, Board of Trustees, I believe there in our code there is something
speaking specifically to um the water system, not a water district,
and also the sewer, but I don't have it up in front of me, but um
in our research there at that time there there was something. And I don't know if
it's in the new code. I can't even think under Well, it sounds to me like we
don't necessarily have enough information to go forward on voting on
this ordinance until we get some more research done. So, I would move to
table this until that is done or next meeting or something of that sort. I'll
second. I think
Sorry. Just a point of clarification. I think it's a a continuation, not a
tabling. Is that correct? I believe you're right. Sorry.
» [laughter] >> Can I make one comment? Yeah, for Chaz,
can we confirm that Palmer Lake Sanitation District has
banned gray water?
I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Talking about Palmer Lake Sanitation. They're
still involved in gray water. They are. Have they
Do we have confirmation they banned gray water?
Um not from Becky. I've talked to Jeff and he said Becky said it was banned.
But regardless of their stance, I would still like to opt out of greywater.
Um So, I could go through my reasons.
I again, if you want me to. I I don't disagree with your reasons. I
I agree with your reasons. My only concern is
greywater affects not only the water, but also sanitation.
And if
I I looked at the Homolka sanitation meetings, but I didn't see where they
passed a motion banning greywater usage. Okay. So, that's one of my concerns is
we need to be in in a kind of in sync.
You know, if we're going not going to do it, they shouldn't do it either.
I agree. I agree.
And for the citizens that aren't familiar with
this, I wasn't any familiar with greywater at all except for my camping
and going on the Colorado trip, but in the past week I've done a lot of
research. You certainly helped enlighten us, Chad. I think the key reasons to opt
out you pointed really well. If anyone else didn't see it, I think the
increased cost to the town, the increased regulation, just a a litany of
things that would arise if we opted in. So, I concur so far with what we've
learned that opting out would be in the best interest of the town both
financially and otherwise. Thank you.
Um I think it is actually the consensus of
the board to opt out in terms of our water system, but the question on the
table seems to be about those that have wells.
Yeah, I think the two the two questions I heard,
uh if I may paraphrase them. So, couple of questions. What happens
when people have to join the town water system who have existing greywater
systems who are on wells today? And then the other question was what happens if
they already have a greywater system and we decide to opt out? Right? So like do
they then have to terminate their greywater system or they you know what
what is the what is the direction for dealing with that situation?
Do you know if there's anyone on the town water system that has a greywater
system? Not that I'm aware of.
Yeah, but I think that was pertaining to wells also that latter point. Both
points were pertaining to people who had wells and greywater systems alongside
their wells. Yeah. Susan Minor
um Highway 105 Palmer Lake um
we have a greywater system that was probably established in the early
50s just after water was brought into the house.
Um before that water wasn't in the house. It was outside.
And if the water ever were to come down 105
which it almost did with the Mission Training International
um Bob and I don't have the financial
ability to join into it at this point. We have a perfectly
working well we're confined to our space. We are
self-sufficient in that
realm and to ask us to come up with 20 or 30
thousand dollars to trench out to the 105
to hook in to city water is not a financial thing that is is
viable for us. So it might be just easier to say
[clears throat] if you're on a well you have the choice to join city water
or not instead of making it you must and then
we'll back into your greywater issue. So you might just consider that because
» Well, in in response to that, if I may, uh
um Matt, did you state that it was in code
that
And there's something about distance. It's in the well agreement
Okay, so it seems like that's what would need to be addressed in regards to your
situation. Yeah, somewhere in there. So, not necessarily and and the gray water
is kind of an aside. So, I don't know what you need to do to
research and address that initial question,
but you make a good point. Yeah. Su- Su- I waited till the water had gone down
105. It's going to be a long time. Yeah. Susan, you and I were probably in the
same boat. Our We have pre-1985 wells. And the well permits that the folks in
the East End, I think, step Matt, aren't they later than '85?
That's why you have that in your well permit. See, so
Our well was back in 1904. Yeah, exactly.
Yeah. But we were forced
to join the town water and financially it's not so
We can't I understand. Sorry.
Yeah, so um I encourage you to to pursue,
you know, whatever might be necessary to clarify what which well permits have
this attached to them. Maybe yours doesn't, I don't know.
Um but it's this kind of a separate issue from the gray water stuff, okay?
In my opinion. Uh again,
uh my motion is to continue this until we
have further answers.
Um and do I have a second? Yeah, he seconds
it. >> Yeah, I do have a second. So, all in
favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing no opposition, this is continued
until we have more answers. Hopefully, next meeting.
Okay?
All right, you may have to come back again
in regards to this subject. So. >> That's fine. All right. And I I
I understand that, but just before that, you know, I don't know what Kent may
come up with, but you guys can talk, you know, before next meeting if
necessary, etc. Yeah, we need to read from the same sheet of music, yeah.
All right. And then you had something else?
I do. I have a uh a request. I would like to uh it's a
request concerning water restrictions. Um
so, I would like to respectfully request that the Board of Trustees consider
delegating limited administrative authority to implement and adjust water
use restrictions as conditions warrant. Um currently, the town code provides for
water restrictions, primarily under emergency uh emergency declaration.
However, uh changing conditions such as seasonal demand, drought indicators,
system capacity, supply levels, and and things like
administrative calls on the creek by the Department of Natural Resources,
um require potentially more flexible responses that may not
rise to the level of a formal emergency. Um
so, um this week, today actually, we we got a call on the creek for senior
users. So, we've had to
basically shut down on surface water production.
Um and we're going to have to use our wells
a lot more now. Um
that came today, that started at noon, and there was a call yesterday on the
creek that wasn't as senior as us, so we were okay, but
the one today trumps us, so we have to we can't we can't use water
out of the creek as long as they have that call. Now, it's indefinite, but uh
it's indefinite. It should be until they satisfy their
their uh allotment, but I don't know when that's going to be
for right now, so um I would like to implement further
outdoor water restrictions for now, and it may come to further reductions in the
future. But,
I want to be able to make that decision quickly
because the situation can change like it did today. I
Glenn, how do you communicate that to the residents quick quick quickly?
You can put it out You can put it online.
Online and water bills.
Yeah, we have a uh process. We put it online. Uh we let
our local uh outlets know about it. We do our water billing. We'll use our
marquee on Main Street. Um every resource we can. Um
Chaz and I also discussed if he felt uh more information was needed, we would
send out individual flyers to residents. Um
in the event we have to go into it quicker than than when the bills cut or
something to that effect. So, yeah, we'll use all those um
PR strategies. >> an emergency declaration. I mean, in my
head an emergency is like a fire in the canyon and it burns our plant down or
something. >> Yeah, the issue we came upon is, you
know, under water conservation, which we're under right now, it um so
specifically defines what those restrictions are. And those have been in
code forever. And what it really doesn't do,
it doesn't allow Chaz, you know, like for instance, right now it says Monday,
Wednesday, Friday and I'm just saying hypothetically Monday, Wednesday, Friday
you can water from this time to this time. Well, right now um
Chaz fills value in kind of a different schedule. Um where it won't really um
I mean it'll still impact the citizen, but um
I guess >> I had considered maybe a a 2-day a week
restriction, but >> different times.
» Um I think maybe leaving the days that are in place for odd and even addresses,
but cutting out one of the time blocks. It's currently 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and
6:00 to 9:00 p.m. Yeah, but if we wanted to go 5:00 to 9:00 or something, you
know, it's in res we have to bring you know, in the evening Right.
» days. So, if you designated authority to Chaz as the SME of the water or the or
the water as the water supervisor, you'd allow him to direct that a little bit
more so we could get it going quicker. Um that's really all your intent was
when you and I discussed it. >> and I wanted to say that, you know,
should you delegate that, it would still remain subject to clearly defined
parameters within town code or policy, oversight by the administrator and the
Board of Trustees, uh regular reporting to the board regarding actions taken.
Um anyway, I think this approach would
allow the town to respond more efficiently to changing conditions um
while still maintaining transparency and accountability. Chaz, if we delegated
this to you, could we just say next 6 months and then it's reverts back?
That's kind of what I my thought is at least the way things look now through
the summer or at least, you know, if we start getting regular precipitation, we
can go ahead and rescind it. >> Yeah, that was my question. Does this a
code change or is this a >> the purpose because in the event, you
know, then you'll just have to change the code again.
» Right. Delegating authority is allowing him to make the recommendation of or
keep the board informed, but it gives him the flexibility
to change you know, again, that's just a different restriction. Right. I I
» Without having to change code or write new code, right?
» Right. So, if it says 6 months, I mean, I don't just my opinion, but can't I
don't know.
Well, I think you could do it either way. It's at the board's discretion. You
could limit the time period that you delegate that authority or make it a
permanent arrangement. If you made it a permanent arrangement, but there was
checks and balances where Jazz was or whoever was the operator was required to
check in and keep you apprised, it probably had the necessary safeguards in
place.
Yeah, that that actually answered my questions, which is, you know, yeah, I I
don't disagree with your request. I think it's a a suitable request. And
you know, as you you already touched on those elements that I was concerned
about, which is reporting to the board, making of course the public aware and
um you know, keeping us abreast of what's
happening and what decisions you've taken. Uh I think those that's
reasonable. Uh and this is a staff staff direction,
right? So, not not a code change, if I'm understanding correctly. No. Is that
» Well, it would be because there's actually code provisions on
water conservation and when to declare an emergency and when restrictions go
into place, what they are. So, yeah, it would be an amendment.
Okay.
Also, quick question. So, there was discussion that got into very
specific particular
provisions around water restrictions right now. [clears throat] Are you also
asking for some guidance on that or was that just an example?
Could you repeat that one more time? So, there was some discussion back and forth
a minute ago, I think between you and Erica, about particular, you know,
watering times and restrictions as well. So, my question is, are you also asking
us for help or guidance on that or was that just an example? Not necessarily,
but I'm I'm open to recommendations or suggestions.
» Right. I I I don't want to have too large of an impact on Right. on
people in town. I Something I hate to do, but it's it's become necessary, so.
So, it's probably a you know,
an obvious answer to this question, but uh
bottom line is that our wells can't handle the increased demand.
They can handle it, but when there's a call on the creek like
this, I've I'm effectively limited to just the wells.
So, I've lost an entire source of of water.
So, the wells can handle it. They're designed to. They're designed to run. Um
but now all the demand burden is placed strictly on the
wells and we really use them as a supplement now.
I mean, most of our water in the town for demand comes out of the creek.
So, it will require running that equipment quite a bit more than we
usually do. And And it'll be fine, but it's just it's a big change.
It's a big change to rely solely on that now.
» You're being proactive, in other words, in regards [snorts] to
just being moderate in our use of just wells.
If I'm hearing you right. >> I think what he said was the the You
said the creek source has been cut off. Therefore, we have to use the wells as
our only source, right? It will be essentially a sole source.
Yeah. While especially while this call is on the creek. Okay. Um since they
trump us, they get to fill they get to use whatever water's there to fulfill
their >> ask who it is? So, I have to take a
backseat to that. May I ask who is the senior senior uh
Who has senior rights us that's asking for this?
Who has senior rights? Oh, the call is
I think it's ultimately Springs Utilities, but it's uh the name of it.
The name of the call is it's from the uh Banister song.
And uh they they have 160 days seniority on about
this. All of our infrastructure is theirs.
They just do. That's all the case. That's all the case for them. I
understand that I understand the legality of it. Yeah.
All right. So, but I think that Banister song right along Springs Utilities.
Okay.
Okay. So, I think the the board needs to direct staff on
changing the code to allow him to be able to take administrative like
administrative actions. Is that right? I think it's it's a
motion rather than a direction. Well, it's a direction to prepare the changes
and then it will be a motion for us to adopt the resolution, right? I think
it's direction to create a code amendment for the next meeting. So, will
he or will he not be able to implement uh before or after
we approve what you bring back to us? Well, in the interim
um you can declare a
an emergency. And you have you don't have to implement
all of those restrictions. You have that whole laundry list of restrictions that
are listed in the code for conservation measures. Okay. Um so, that that'd be an
option. Tonight. That was in
You might want to speak to that. Right now, I don't feel Chaz was hesitant to
call an emergency. Could we get a little more volume potentially?
Sorry. Do you want to speak You had shared with me about you weren't in a
position where he really wanted to We're not like in an emergency level, right?
» Understood. And so that's part of why our hands were tied when we were
evaluating the code. He wants to be able to restrict it, but he does not want to
want it to call it an emergency and I That's where
» to implement further restrictions if necessary without
rising to the level of calling it an emergency. Right. So do you feel because
in order to make this change, you know, they have to do it via resolution, which
would be the next meeting. Are you okay with having, you know,
that's 2 weeks till our next meeting before you can go in and change it from
what it currently is under conservation right now. That's basically, I think,
what they need to understand. >> okay operating in the short term
the way things are. Yes. Okay. I guess and in the event an emergency,
you know, we go to different levels and an emergency needs
to be called, then we would come back to the board with that.
And that's all we can really do because that code is so restrictive.
Another question I have is do you have a chart of what changes you want to make
on the restrictions?
Well, I haven't really decided and then like I said, I
could I'd use input from you from the board. Um
if we wanted to go to a 2-day a week restriction from the current 3-day
and leave the watering times in place, my thought was to leave the days in
place because that's what people are used to. So if we went to 2 days, I'd
want to implement 2 days for everybody to water on and
that's probably going to throw everybody off.
Like if we did Tuesday and Saturday or something, well,
now people are going to have to get used to doing a new routine. So my thought
was keeping the days in place and maybe changing it to one watering period like
5:00 p.m. to 9:00 or a a 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. but taking away the morning
watering time block. And so that effectively cuts our outdoor
usage in half, right? So.
But I'm I'm open to suggestions. >> I agree with leaving the days and and
and shortening the hours.
So we're just going to one one time block rather than two time blocks.
That's what I that's what I thought. >> One time block instead of two. I and the
same days that you have now for watering. I think it makes it easier for
everybody that way.
» Um So again, we need a motion. Is that
correct? No, just direction.
Just direction to create an ordinance along those lines.
» Okay. All in favor of creating an ordinance
along those lines. Aye. >> Aye. Opposed?
Hearing no opposed, the direction has been given.
So I'm still a little bit unclear. I understand, of course, we're going to
have the ordinance change, but I'm still a little bit unclear as to whether or
not we actually gave you proper direction on changing the
watering restriction time. >> it until we pass the law. And it would
be at his direction as the water supervisor ORC. He would come to the
board based off of his evaluation of water levels. I mean, they measure them
all day long. That's what, you know, he's our water expert for the town. He
will come and make recommendations to the board in the event he needs to
restrict those water restrict the water usage. Um and I would think
you would come with, you know, an explanation as to why we're doing that
based off of levels. I mean, that's really what it is. It's
allowing him to bring that recommendation to the board and from
there if the board decides, you know, no, those are too restrictive or no, we
don't want to do that, then that would be the time to say so.
» where we're at right now with the call on the creek, and again, this won't be
permanent. It's in It's indefinite when they'll
stop the call, but it's effectively like having a dry creek right now. That water
doesn't It doesn't belong to us now. So, I I'm ready to, you know, implement some
restrictions as soon as we can.
I believe you've been given direction.
Um that's the end of our uh business items. Uh
Yes, sir.
Um so >> State your name and I'm sorry. Matt
Steffen, Circle Drive. Um
two things in relation to this. One,
we're hesitating to declare a water emergency,
but it sounds like he's requesting restrictions be placed immediately,
which I'm not hearing direction being given from the board to implement.
Secondly, if the ordinance is written and
presented to you next time, if it's not in an emergency status, it'll be 30 days
before it can be implemented. So, you would be It's not an ordinance. It's a
resolution. I'm sorry. It's a resolution.
» And so, the 30 days doesn't apply. But you would be changing town code, would
that not require 30 days notice for the public?
Well, even with an ordinance, if it is to protect the health and safety
and welfare of the town, it can go into effect immediately.
» Okay. And your first point is exactly my question, which is he sounds like he's
asking for help. He's asking for help now.
» to get trying to get it to him in an expedient
fashion. >> Right. So, so
uh town clerk just said he will come with recommendations and requests for
implementing restrictions. You gave direction to the attorney to
write the ordinance but or the resolution but not necessarily to
implement immediately water restrictions, which it sounds like is
what he's asking for. And if we're looking at potential for 150 days of a
dry creek or an essentially dry creek, it sounds like the restrictions are
being requested now. And I wasn't hearing action being given on that.
» What I heard recommended to us from this side of the
uh uh ordinance >> He can't come to you now with He doesn't
have that power. Correct. Without going into the
You could declare an emergency and with
Jazz, you know, working with the board, you could implement specific
restrictions now. Okay.
I hadn't heard that before. Okay. Um I'm willing to do that.
Um it's one of our precious resources, so
um
So, that would require direction or a motion?
Do you want to do an emergency? Like that's what they're asking. Yes. Yes.
Yeah, I as I thought you said >> I get I mean, we can if if Yeah, if you
want to, that's That's also fine. It gets the intended result. I mean, in my
head, I'm just thinking emergency is like
a plant goes down and I physically have I don't have it anymore, right? But
That's an extreme emergency. This is This is
» Right, you know, Yeah. I guess I ultimately I'm fine either
way. The The declaration >> like to get some some
» The >> Does it require you to do all the
restrictions listed in the code? You can do one of the restrictions.
» Whatever. Okay. And that that discretion would be his or still ours?
You would ask his what? I think you could delegate that as part of the
resolution declaring an emergency. Okay. So, that requires a motion? Yes.
I move that we declare an emergency and delegate the
um response to said emergency to our water operator.
Do I have a second? I'll second that. All in favor? I.
» I. I. There are none opposed. Consider
yourself delegated. Good. Thank you. You're welcome.
One last question. So, am I bringing in Are we bringing a resolution back on the
verbage for the conservation delegating him aside from the emergencies?
» Ask ask our town attorney. What what is the
» Well, what I need to know what the board's direction is.
» the answer is still yes. >> Thank you.
All right.
Um now we're done with the business items.
Okay. Um and so, we'll open it up to public
comment. And we have uh Ms. Minor.
Susan Minor, um 105 Palmer Lake.
Um Following [clears throat]
uh Trustee Yurkus' point about all the board members should be working from the
same knowledge base, before you go into executive session to
discuss the Elephant Rock property, I'd like to
refer you back to resolution 25 of 2024, where the board desires to involve town
organizations and members of the public in providing input into the vision of
the land use plan for the Elephant Rock property by providing a recommendation
to the Board of Trustees to better enable the Board of Trustees to make a
determination on the use of the property. The purpose, and that's
paragraph number three, item number two, the purpose of the advisory committee is
to provide the Board of Trustees a recommendation
of the vision of the Palmer the Elephant Rock property in the form of possible
land use plan within 90 days of the resolution. We met all of those
requirements. I was appointed by the Board when I was
on the Board to work with Planning Commission to do
the master plan. At that point, we determined that the
Elephant Rock property was a unique enough element that it should have its
own master plan approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of Trustees to
take that approach. This resolution was charging me with
setting up an organization involving all the committees that we had outlined,
which is all the different groups in town that were
stakeholders to develop the master plan for the
Elephant Rock property. In that master plan, we went back to all
of the input from the citizens. There were 60 ideas for that property. They
were ranked. They were ranked by plausibility, by use of the property,
and by use of the structures that were there.
Of the 60, 47
had fee income attached to them, and 16 had the a proper
um sales tax opportunities. We presented 146
pages of documentation
of all of those ideas, of their financial viability, of the resources
that could fill those financial viability, and of all of the sources of
income that could come from that. I would request that because most of
you, I would think, have not read this document, it is an addendum to the
master plan, which you have proven dependency on,
and that the planning commission uses as a document. Before you talk about the
property, you should know what the citizens wanted done with the town
property. I would respectfully ask you to not have
that executive session and discuss the fate until you all know what you're
talking about. On the same page. Thank you.
» Susan, what was the resolution number, please? 25
of 2024. Thank you. And with paragraph three is what I read,
and then item number two. Thank you.
Martha Brodzik, 551 Highway 105. Really quick, the process that we've been
following in the town for the monthly financials is
that they're brought before the board uh
two board meetings after the close of the month.
Um in the last few months, we've been
getting them three board meetings after, which is
five to six weeks. And just two weeks ago in the
workshop with our new accountant, your part-time controller, they even said
with one of their flags to avoid CORAs, it's best to provide the monthly
financials within two two weeks of the month closing out. Please consider that.
Thank you.
Before I was pushed aside, I was going to come up
and talk about the water issue. Uh I'm Paul Olivier, 301 Sterling
Avenue, Palmer Lake.
While I was mayor, uh Colorado Springs also cut off our use
of the water from the lake uh from the
reservoirs and from the creek.
Uh I got to know the Colorado Springs mayor
fairly well. I gave him a call.
I said, "Could you
shut off your call because you have water from a lot of
other sources other than
the creek here?" He said, "I'm perfectly willing to do
that." And we were able to continue using water from the
reservoir and from the creek. So, that's something that took place about 39 years
ago, but it was possible to do that then.
Maybe it's possible to do that now, although a lot of change has taken place
in Colorado Springs. Thank you. Thank you.
Uh hello. Name's Eric Sept, live on Woodmoor Acres [clears throat] Drive in
Monument, Colorado. Can you speak up, Eric?
» up, please? Oh, can you hear me now? Speak a little louder, please. Can you
hear me now? >> In the microphone. Oh, hello.
» [laughter] >> Um Eric Sept, uh
live on Woodmoor Acres Drive, Monument, Colorado. Uh I appreciate that uh the
town has sounds like a lot of overdue business. You have a list of items.
Uh really my only question is is when are all of those people that have
effective item affected items going to be met with?
Like what is the schedule for meeting with all of us?
If I might If I might ask a question, Mr. Sepp.
Um just for the public consumption once
again, Mr. Sepp owns um at least 30, maybe 35 acres
just below Ben Loman on the 105 side. He has been trying [snorts] now for how
many months, Mr. Sepp? 6, 8 months? It's actually I looked it up. Um I first
contact I was first contacted by Tim Caves uh April 1st of 2025 to start a
conservation easement. Okay, and so the problem we're facing here is he's he's
willing to donate the land to our town. We just need to get him together
with legal counsel because the problem is if I'm if I'm out of if
I'm out of turn, I'll stop. I'm sorry. I just want to remind the board and Mr.
Sepp a lot of this discussion has been uh discussed in executive session and
not for the public uh to a certain certain level. So, to keep the
negotiations secure, I would look to Kent on how to advise us when speaking
on this topic. But I think I can save us some time here, hopefully, because I'm
always long-winded. But as you guys all noticed earlier, we discussed this
priority list, which prime example is Mr. Sepp's project. Staff is
continuously um approached or contacted by residents
um requesting updates and status and
meetings and everything pertaining to this
um information on the list due to lack of legal counsel and now, you know lack
of planners, we're not able to give them an answer. We are working forward and
and I feel in a better position now with Kent and and this list we have a path
forward. But again, that's that's where the
board's going to have to help us prioritize, you know, speaking earlier
with the hearing and the investigation as Kent said, that's consuming majority
of his time right now. He has received information from this list, but he has
to get up to speed if I'm and I don't want to speak for you. I'll let you
speak for yourself. Some of these will take some time.
Yeah, just to add to that and and hopefully address Mr. Sepp's question.
There's a lot on the list and that's why we need guidance from the board where
you want me to uh you know, focus my time because
um there's a year's worth of stuff or more
on here. So, I need direction on where you want me to focus. And just for maybe
more amplification and and tell me to stop if I because I I I didn't attend
that executive session. The practical consequences of stalling this particular
request is that he's relying on tax credits.
And when those are gone, he's going to build and that's his
right. So, we can either put him very very high and potentially get land given
to us or we can continue to stall
and then according to our master plan, 105, we want to keep that as an open
space. He's allowed he he wants to do that.
Let's let him do that, please. Let's move him up to the very top. That's all
I'm asking. >> that we're stalling
» stalling. So, I think that's the wrong word.
» Okay, he's been trying for 6 to 8 months. He was never
» a It's not a matter of stalling. We haven't had a an attorney. He We had an
attorney for several months. Our attorney didn't meet with him. That's a
fact. Let's be very clear. Well, I believe
that the word stall is incorrect. >> Yeah, okay, I retract.
I retract stall. We've been unable to meet with him.
» Yes, that's true. We have. >> Yes, and
No, that's not true. I have attorney bills from my attorney, Chris Cummins. I
was billed as we were trying to get Mr. Crab to meet with us. He was
unresponsive uh for months before he met. Yes, we had meetings, but
it should not take 6 to 8 weeks to get a meeting and have me get
invoiced by my attorney to hunt down the town attorney. I would I'm not I'm not
going to make this contentious, but we did have meetings.
» Yeah. And I'm not going to have this back and forth, but
» No, I just want >> this this project is far more
complicated than some people like to make it seem. Just so you know, this is
not just a land donation. Here it is, have a nice day, take the keys and go.
Okay, there are a lot to do there. There's easements there that have to be
dealt with. There are other lots that Mr. Septs does not own in that in that
area that have to be dealt with. It isn't as simple as everybody thinks it
is. So, yes, I understand we didn't have an attorney. I understand it's taken a
long time, and I understand everybody's frustrated. But and I understand if the
board chooses to accelerate it to the top, so be it. But nobody's stalling
with this project. I'm not I'm not asking for I'm nobody special. What I'm
asking for is just am I meeting tomorrow, next week, next
year, in 2035? When When can all of us
business owners or just citizens at large that have things to do with Palmer
Lake, when when can we start to get answers? Well,
and again, um if I may, because you're looking at me
and I know you you contact me and ask for updates. And I know Mr. Sept knows
this. He is one of 33 of almost identical issues were delayed on
contract deadlines where people, you know, we have other residents. And so,
I'm not trying to minimize his concern, but what I'm really trying to bring the
attention to of the board is we really have to get down to business. We have a
lot of these pending issues despite where they're at in the process, but out
of the 33, we have 26 of them flagged as ones, which is high priority. As And
yours is on there, Mr. Sip as number one. I mean, the Eco Spa, Highbrook, 21
and five, fire code that's delayed, the ADU. So,
we have all all of these. The issues with the land use is we've provided Kent
with all of the information that we have on behalf of the town.
And he needs time to review and get updated, in which you haven't been able
to do due to the investigation
that he was working on. So, I just want to be transparent and clear. We are
doing everything staff can do. We need board's direction on how to
prioritize or change. How How are you going to, you know, And ma'am, to to
your credit, you you and Chief Smith have been overly patient with me.
I think we've been overly patient with each other. And it would just help if
there's just a general schedule that like, you know, whoever, Jim Bob, you're
going to get met with in 3 weeks, whatever. Eric, you're going to get met
with in 4 weeks. Like, can we just have some generic
plan? >> I believe that your concern has been
heard, and we as Yeah,
regardless, but as stated, we have been tasked The board has been tasked with
prioritizing this list. And again, we've heard your concerns. We're very well
aware of it. Um I believe that as a board, the board as a whole will do its
best to keep you at the top. Thank you for your time.
Hi, I'm Grace Foy in unincorporated County.
» You're going to have to speak up, please. Can you hear me now?
Better. Okay. Um I just wanted to address the
harassment complaint and subsequent investigation and potential hearing
involving Trustee Mosley. Anyone who has attended or watched any of these
meetings knows that Mr. Mosley speaks to everyone in the same way. He challenges
people across the board, men and women alike, when he sees issues or
incompetence. That's not harassment, that's accountability.
However, what is truly concerning here is the inconsistency in how these types
of matters are handled. In just the past 18 months, this community has witnessed
multiple allegations involving other officials, ranging from inappropriate
gestures to serious misconduct that were never investigated. Requests from both
trustees and citizens for investigations into collusion and inappropriate
behavior were never investigated. There have been public instances where the
former mayor appeared to coordinate with a lobbyist during a land use discussion.
Members of the public have been called degrading names, including sex workers,
fat cows, and terrorists. Trustees have been made have made obscene gestures,
raised their voices, and even faced accusations of physically intimidating a
constituent. The interim town administrator made an
aggressive and unprofessional slashing throat motion towards the audience and
the planning commission chair told the public to shut their mouths.
People reported feeling threatened as they were followed to their cars and
there are extensive documents, concerns about dishonesty and misrepresentation
by former officials. These are not minor issues. These are behaviors many would
consider aggressive, intimidating, and harassing, yet none were investigated.
There are also serious concerns about process. Multiple reports of harassment
from other citizens do not result in police reports or investigations, which
raises legitimate concerns about fairness and impartiality. At the same
time, serious At the same time, serious written
complaints about conduct within the administration, issues that directly
impact public trust, have not been addressed with this level of urgency or
even any urgency at all. So, what has changed? Why is this being pursued now
under a different standard? From the outside, this doesn't look like
accountability. It looks like selective enforcement or worse, retaliation. So,
the question is simple. Are standards being applied fairly or are individuals
being targeted? Because Because of these inconsistencies in enforcement, these
unanswered concerns, and the clear questions about fairness and process, a
hearing for Trustee Mosley cannot move forward in an incredible or impartial
way.
Trina Shuck.
So, back to the question, um what is the standard being applied here?
And I'm saying this for public so that it's on record.
The allegations against Trustee Roger Mosley describe a raised voice,
an intimidating tone, and pointing of a pen.
Those are not legal standards. Those are descriptions.
I'm going to demonstrate something briefly.
This is a pen.
The This pen is being emphasized emphasized pointing at something.
Um I can use it.
So, the question is when does it become aggressive?
Is it the motion? Is it the perception? And more importantly, what makes it that
gender-based?
Now, let's talk about tone. If I say,
"Where's my application?" versus "Where is my application?"
So again, what is the standard? Is there a defined decibel level?
And if so, what is it? And if volume is the issue, what about
the individuals that are hearing impaired?
Is their threshold higher?
Now, I want to address conduct already in record involving Mr. Glenn Smith.
There is documented conduct where gestures are used with the, you know,
slitting of the throat. Um
of him not returning my sign. Uh still not getting my sign returned
because I can't get a hold of the people at the Awake the Lake.
So, the question is was that evaluated under the same
standard? Because if similar or more forceful
conduct is treated differently depending on the individual,
then the issue is not conduct.
Without a divine standard, there is no reliable basis for
conclusion.
And I don't believe that that hearing should be held.
Thank you.
Okay, you've just heard about the lack of a defined standard.
I want to address the legal basis. This is not an employment lawsuit.
This [snorts] is a proceeding involving an elected official.
Public statements refer for reference to what was described as the power act,
but the written charges do not identify the statute.
They do not not define a legal standard.
If the intent was to reference the Protecting Opportunities and Workers
Rights Act or the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act,
those laws govern employ employment uh relationships.
They do not establish a legal basis for removing an elected official.
So the question is kind of simple. What law is being applied?
Due process requires a notice of the allegations
and notice of a legal basis. Here the legal theory appears to have
been introduced during a public meeting, not in written charges.
A hearing is not meaningful if the legal standard is revealed during the hearing
itself.
Without a clearly identified legal basis, the process itself is not
reliable.
Jean Colletti Jean Colletti, Palmer Lake
You've heard about the lack of defined standard and the lack of clearly
identified legal basis. I want to address consistency and
completeness of the process. Because process is not just about what
is investigated, it is also about what is not
investigated. There were documented communications
already in public record raising concerns about statements and
coordination involving third parties. Trustee Otis Yeurka requested
investigation into these matters. That investigation did not occur.
Yet this matter is proceeding.
So the question becomes what is the standard for deciding what is
investigated and what is not. There is also the issue of authority and
completeness. Communications were sent directly to
outside investigator, Employers Council, asking on what stat- statutory authority
they were acting to investigate a sitting elected official.
Those communications also informed them that relevant information existed that
should be considered as part of any fair and complete
review.
We were told there would be a response. There was no response.
Follow-up communication was then sent to Chief Executive Officer of the Board of
Employers Council raising the same concerns.
That also received no response.
So again, we are left with no clearly identified legal authority, no response
to questions about the authority, and no indication that all relevant information
was considered. That matters
because due process requires not just a conclusion, but it
but a process that is complete, transparent, and accountable.
And when questions about authority go unanswered and relevant information is
not acknowledged or incorporated, the reliability of that outcome
is called into question. This is not simply a disagreement about
facts. It is a question of whether the process
itself meets the basic standard of fairness.
Your time is going to be up. And so, if you can wrap it up
» Without a defined standard, without a clearly identified legal basis, and
without consistent and complete application,
there is no reliable or lawful foundation for this proceeding.
This hearing must be canceled. And I ask that these communications I'm
about to hand Erica and one copy for the rest of you
to share, I would like for it to be a part of the record.
Hi, I'm Debbie Hall and I live at 20343 Kenneth Laner Drive
in Monument. Good evening and thank you for the
opportunity to speak. I'm here tonight as someone who loves this community.
I've lived here, worked here, and built relationships here.
And it matters to me how we treat each other.
Right now, I'm seeing division. I'm seeing people hurting, people
frustrated, people forming strong opinions,
and while concern should absolutely be taken seriously, I believe we also have
a responsibility be fair and not rush to judgment
before all the facts are known. We are talking about our neighbors, real
people with lives, reputations, and families.
And one of those people is Roger Mosley. This man who served our country as
retired Air Force Colonel and a test pilot on highly advanced aircraft. Like
he was the first one that flew the stealth bomber.
I don't know if you guys know that. I uh To me, you're like an astronaut, you
know? So, anyways, um
and that kind of role doesn't happen by
accident. It requires discipline, sound judgment, and integrity.
That doesn't mean anyone is above accountability, but it does mean we
should approach a situation thoughtfully and carefully, not based on assumptions
or emotion alone. In the Bible, we are told to love our
neighbors as ourselves. And to me, that means something especially in moments
like this, when it's easy to divide and harder to
extend grace. Loving your neighbor doesn't mean
ignoring concerns. It means we handle them with fairness, truth, and respect
for one another's dignity. I don't believe any of us here tonight
has the full picture. That's why it's important we allow proper process to
take place and that we don't let the situation turn into something that
damages our community beyond repair. Because when this is over, we're still
neighbors. We're still neighbors, you guys.
And I want to live in a community that chooses respect over assumptions, truth
over reaction, and unity over division. We can disagree and still choose to
treat each other well. Thank you.
My name is Steve Draper and I live Colorado Springs.
And this is Beau. B E A U
Uh and I'd like to start with Andy Rooney.
» Beau does not get an an additional 3 minutes.
» [laughter]
» Thank you, Dennis. Uh I'd like to start with Andy Rooney, a
satirist of 60 Minutes fame. Do you all know Andy Rooney?
Um said the average dog is nicer than an average
person. I'd like all of us to take Rooney's
comment to heart. And my Beau, I think, actually is better
than average. But I'm biased.
But as it relates to Roger, >> [clears throat]
» uh Roger may not be a Beau, Beau is better than average.
But he also is not an attack Doberman or a vicious junkyard dog
or a mistreated pit bull ready to attack at a moment's notice.
I'd put him somewhere between a poodle and a German Shepherd.
As people may know, uh poodles are known for their
smartness. Roger is one of the smartest people I've
ever known and I've been friends with many, many smart people throughout my
life. So some of my buds are Princeton people,
Harvard people, etc. Um but Roger is up there.
And in Roger's case, just a quick example, I was lucky enough to be
invited to uh Roger and Marty's house uh for a dinner. And even before I went
to the house, uh he he was out piddling in an
Airstream, you know, the little campers.
And so I got to go see him out in the Airstream and I looked at the Airstream
and there were like electronic wire harnesses hanging down, little diode
lighting things everywhere. I I felt like he was actually trying to make the
damn thing fly. And Roger, you should know they need
wings, right? For that Airstream to I think so. I may be wrong.
Uh their house design, unbelievable. Almost 100% solar energy sustainable,
» [clears throat] >> efficient heated floors that sensed
uh the temperature, beautiful architecture, incredible lighting,
amazing amazing art, all designed by Roger and Marty.
At the other end, we have the German Shepherds, as I
mentioned. Task
driven, hard working, high energy, get things done.
And yes, they bark a bit. And I know Roger can bark. I've seen him
bark at ex-attorney Krob
at an important crossroads in the Bucky saga.
But Krob literally literally admitted he had made mistakes.
But most importantly, Roger apologized for his attack.
You know, 2 minutes later.
But I can't say if Roger ever barked at me, I likely would have deserved it and
would have learned from it. So being the part-time German Shepherd
that he is, Roger gets things done and through adversity.
Roger would never tell you uh this, but he faced the ultimate
adverse event in the Vietnam War when flying a mission to Cambodia,
he actually was shot. His and and had had um
uh had actually had a wound as well. And he almost didn't make it. He he
flew over uh this large lake uh and he literally [clears throat] said
that he was about to pass out, but he but he raised his he he raised his hands
up and was almost flying the plane underneath his hands.
But he was about to faint. Long story short, he made it back to the base.
Um you know, he's he's simply uh uh
is a bonafide hero. So Roger is very smart,
very energetic, he gets things done with a little bark, but certainly no bite.
He's a hero, at least to me, and to Bo.
» Laurel Skau, Woodmoor, Colorado, and um I also want to talk about Roger, but I
also want to tell let you know that you have a gem here in
Palmer Lake. Um my hiking group on March 30 31st, we hiked with the uh or walked
the town with the Palmer Lake uh Historic Society and Vail Museum uh
cohorts. And I just want to encourage you all to um
visit the beautiful little Vail Museum that's under the library. And uh they
have walking tours in pamphlet form, and you can also arrange to have one. And
now I have a huge appreciation for every photograph, the Rockland Hotel sign that
is all around us. So, uh Palmer Lake is a gem, and uh I love that
they're part of this whole community. Uh
and then I want to add my thoughts on moving forward with codifying of the
existing ordinance is a codifying of a staff hearing ordinance that is
absolutely seldom used because of the complexity of becoming a true hearing
with examination and cross-examination and all the real-life drama and
exposure. We are now that would Are we prepared for that? That is And then the
necessary time Oh, look at that. Uh necessary time that is required of your
new attorney to be putting all of his time in this for something that the
genesis of was retaliation specifically directed towards Roger Mosley.
Roger began his life of service in 1964 when he took his oath on the on the
completion of his basic training. He graduated from the Air Force Academy in
1968 having spent time even then in the area he now calls home here. And and he
went on to serve in roles overseeing both people and complex projects for
more than two decades in the Air Force followed by another 25 years in
government service. At one point as a lieutenant colonel
Roger was placed in a position overseeing three colonels. That does not
happen by accident. It happens because of demonstrated judgment, capability,
and an ability to work effectively with people. That was the stated reason he
was put in that position. His knowledge and his skill sets working with other
people. Of all the course over the course of a 45-year career managing
people and complex programs Roger built something that cannot be created
overnight. Long-standing professional relationships and continued respect from
the people he worked alongside both men and women.
People who create toxic environments do not spend decades in leadership roles,
do not continue to be trusted with responsibility, and do not maintain
their strong relationships long after their careers are over. Thank you.
» [applause]
» Is there any others?
Is this public comment or we just referencing Roger or we talking about
everything? >> Pardon me? Anything.
» Anything. Okay. >> [laughter]
» Because I would certainly elevate Roger. Roger, I've been sent some articles
about you that I didn't know long before I supported you and um you have my
utmost admiration. But I will say to all of you, Mr. Kent, you are a breath of
fresh air. Mr. Beeson, >> [applause]
» I was um very disappointed when you were not appointed initially when you first
um attempted to be a board of trustee, but um I realized why that didn't happen
because you were so effective on the planning commission.
And um you did an amazing job back when we had
Buckey's here and I so appreciate your leadership, your questioning, and I saw
um if we're going to talk about outburst, I
saw outburst that night. Beth, thank you for stepping up when um
when it was tough. And you have um been open to neighbors
adjacent to Palmer Lake and I appreciate that.
John, thank you. I was there when um we did
the forum and your dedication to Palmer Lake, your love of this area, and um I'm
I'm glad that you're seated here. Otis, you were a lone warrior
for a long time and we appreciate your dedication and your integrity.
Uh Roger, of course, um thank you for your service to the United States and um
continuing to Palmer Lake. And uh Mr. Beltran, um welcome. I
appreciate your level-headedness, you guys ability to work together, not being
a think group, and um voting independently. And as a neighbor
watching intently on what is happening here,
I appreciate that. And anyway,
I do not think that a hearing is necessary either. And if we are going to
have a hearing based on outburst, based on intimidation, based on intimidation
not just of us, but like um Mr. Mayor, respectfully, you treat me and a couple
people much differently than you treat others. And um that is not appreciated
and it's intimidating. And it's intimidating when the chief of police is
acting as interim administrator. And there are many women in here that will
not come through this town because we do not feel safe because we see the
outburst and the um uh the unevenness of personality and all
of your chief of police that is acting as interim administrator and that is in
a public forum. And I would not be comfortable. I come
just inside the city limits just for my hairdresser. Oh, and Trina.
» [laughter] >> But you know, once in a while. And I
think that should be taken seriously. And we if we're going to apply the same
standard, we need to take a look at the outburst that occur in this meeting and
how it makes others feel uncomfortable to come to the town and come to the
meeting. But again, I'd like to end positively and you guys are doing a
great job and we appreciate you. And um thank you for all the time that it takes
to do your due diligence and I know that you all do. Thank you.
» [applause]
» Seeing no other public comment, um
we'll go on to board reports. Um Tony?
Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's come to my attention that the uh parking lot over
on the west uh correction, east side of Palmer Lake here.
Um they put in a lab over there that uh is
obstructing the loading access area and creating long lines that actually extend
into the road. Um when people are standing there to use
them, I think that is a safety hazard and they probably could have done it
better. I know that we don't own the land, El Paso County does,
but I'd like to see this addressed possibly before the next meeting. I'm
sure we can communicate with El Paso County and a resolution to maybe have
them move that single lab into a place where people don't line up and and are
actually in the drive-thru area. Thank you. What What is it that they placed? A
uh laboratory, one of those mobile laboratories. I can
» toilet. Is that what they call them?
» Yes. Okay, thank you. I stand corrected. >> understand what you said, but I call
them laboratories because, well, you know.
Um just as far as long as he's brought that
up, Chief, do we have any kind of update on our negotiations with El Paso County?
We do not, but it's on the list. It's on the priority list. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You're welcome. Roger.
Well, that was kind of hard to take, but thank you very much. Um
I just one item for our clerk, uh just to push a little harder on getting the
financial review uh workshop and uh
we can uh detail what's going to go in that workshop. But she's aware of it and
we we're we've been pushing for this for some time, but
I guess I need a little bit more direction because we've had the auditor
and then we scheduled a workshop or a meeting with the auditor after and then
last workshop, um it sounds like that didn't meet your
expectations pertaining to fiscal stewardship.
Um and so again, I know you speak to the water
enterprise. I guess if you could really line out your questions,
» let me tell you what they are. They're the resolution that requires the
bank statements. We're not doing that. The idea that we've been told for 3
years we had one checking account and we don't. We have at least two.
That we had one savings account. You waved a piece of paper in a couple
meetings ago that showed or maybe it was Christie, but it showed three or four
savings account. I would just like to understand how all that works together,
but the most important thing is because we pay for all of our bills with a
single check and some of those checks involve both water enterprise
money and uh general fund money is that once we do that, what is the mechanism
for tracking that and getting that resolved? And you know, these are just
general questions. They're not hard, but I would like to have a financial
workshop that shows how that all works. Mr. Mosley, with all due respect, can
you maybe formulate those into an email and send them to me? I'm not sure that
will entail a workshop, but I think in a public I can set it in an agenda item
and get those answered again. Yeah, I'd be glad. Thank you. I will do that.
I just want to add an item. Um
probably everybody knows that Buc-ee's made the news recently.
And one of my concerns is, you know, the citizens probably like voted
overwhelmingly against Buc-ee's. And it looks like they're still moving
forward through El Paso County. Uh the town of Monument has taken a look
at what the impact that's going to be on their town.
Uh there are some considerations we need to consider. Public safety,
water, economic, property values, loss of our dark sky.
And at some point I'd like the our board to get together and figure out and work
with this town staff and make some assessments of if it does
come, which it appears it might happen, what's the impact in Palmer Lake?
And it's not something immediate, but it's something that we I think we should
work on.
I believe he's asking us to add that to the list.
Um I will again, I'll definitely add it to the
list just to bring it to the board's attention. We have special counsel
advising us on that matter fully before we can take any type of I mean, if if
Yeah, okay. Please assist cuz I know that
the town staff have some some state water
and public works, particularly fire and
public safety is is concerned like case of wildfire, how's that going to
impact our evacuation cuz there's 27,000 cars on
you know, county line road.
You're asking for a resource impact study. Okay.
I have nothing for tonight. Good. Um
Uh as I mentioned last meeting, I uh attended the PPRBD meeting uh last
Wednesday, not yesterday, but a week ago.
And uh they have been
um they're one of the best in the state. I
I I'm a general contractor. I work around the state. I have had to deal
with building departments in Loveland, Fort Collins, Aurora, Green
Mountain Village, Centennial, Douglas County, and um
our El Paso County Regional Building Department is one of the best in the
state. So, just wanted to give them kudos publicly.
Uh just want to amplify the Palmer Lake open house celebration tomorrow.
Uh Palmer Lake Library will have lawn games and so on on the green tomorrow.
Um you know, encourage everybody to attend
if you can. You could also have an opportunity to win a $75 gift card to
Culver's.
Um just two things. Um I attended uh the historical society, and I don't
want to get the title wrong, so um it was an excellent
presentation on how the expeditions of Pike, Long, and the Spanish put Colorado
on the map. It was riveting and was given by Mr. Wesley Brown right here. I
encourage everyone to go to the historical society meetings. Get there
early. This place was packed. And now I have an agenda item that I'd
like to add a discussion and possible direction
to uh set firm priority lists uh given
uh with our attorney relative to this priority list that was given to us
tonight. What I'm asking for is that we sort this out during next meeting, and
we sort it out in a final final matter, 1 through
33, just so we can work together and get it done next meeting, so it doesn't drag
on. Do I have a second?
No second? I don't know that it needs to be a
motion. So, uh it's we've given you you've given uh staff uh direction to
put it on next month's job agenda. Okay, I was just
I'm confused because staff reports require a second, so I'm
just trying to keep up. I don't know what you're talking about,
personally. Dennis, if if we're going to accept that
task, you think maybe we could start the meeting a little earlier?
» Well, I don't know um Up to you. Yeah, uh do we have a workshop next uh
do we have a workshop before next meeting? So, no.
Thank you. I I will make a suggestion, if you'll
let me, Mayor. Sure. I I think that staff could probably work with the
attorney and give you perhaps the top five
critical things that need to be addressed both from
the residents perspective and the attorneys perspective and the towns
perspective. I think there are probably that many
that we could put on the top that need to be addressed more urgently
than perhaps the other number ones. I think that helps the process.
» that that's a good start and I think that trying to address all 33 or
whatever um
will tie us into knots actually. If we can identify the top five or six
and go with that um I think that that's going to be a great start. I concur.
Thank you, Chief.
Would it would it make sense for the board members to send in their top five
choices? Would that help anything? You can do
more. Uh yeah, and
just just as my first impression is that they've got all the information we
don't. >> And I'll I'll take whatever input you'd
like to provide, but the complexity of some of the land use
issues you may not know about on the back end, that's all. Just there some of
them are more critical than others. Very good.
Um
our next meeting will be the What is it the Is it the
15th of May? Is that correct?
14th May Yeah.
So um
and we've already discussed future items, so
uh we're going to convene to an executive session for the purpose
pursuant to CRS
in order to discuss a private property offer to purchase certain town owned
property known as the El Faroque property. Actually, that's uh a little
bit of a misnomer. It's portion of the Elephant Rock property.
And to receive legal advice on this offer from the town attorney and other
advice from the from town engaged realtor, Greg Kaufman.
Uh once we um are done with that executive session, we
will reconvene to open session. In the meantime, we have to ask the public to
leave. Thank you for your participation.
We will recess for 10 minutes prior to going into executive session. Executive
session, I have a second. You got a second.
Okay, thanks.
May I have May I have quiet, please?
So, um I failed to make a motion to move into
executive session. Is that correct? So, I so move. Do I have a second?
» Second. So, I have a motion and a second to move
into executive session. All in favor >> Mr. Mayor, I You need to read the script
and cite the CRS statute. I already did that.
» Did you? Okay. Yes, I did. >> Okay.
Yes, I did. Uh
opposed? There's none, opposed, so it uh motion passes. We're moving into
executive session. Okay, and it's my opinion that this does not need to be
recorded because it'll be attorney-client privileged. Very good.
» Okay. Do we leave executive
Sorry. That's fine.
I'll make a motion to come out of executive session, return to regular
session. Second.
All in favor? Aye. No opposed. We're out of executive
session. So, Mike, in response to your question,
Thank you. um uh
Susan Miner did uh
complete her task and present uh
uh that 100 and what did she say? 140-page
um set of proposals for the Elephant Rock
property, uh but it was all rejected by the then
board >> Oh. in terms of
uh uh
you know, there was mostly about the cabins at the time,
and uh it was mostly about uh
getting grants uh for and again, this was we were still going to be the
landlord and not sell. We were going to be
leasing. And so, there was it wasn't necessarily
solid ground on which to move forward. And uh
if you recall, we voted something like six times
to tear down those cabins, and it kept coming back up and coming back up
that we shouldn't do it and shouldn't do it, and we we were gracious and listened
to the objections, but every time the vote happened,
uh and eventually uh
was settled that those cabins came down, and therefore, most of her presentation
is moot in regards to that. Um
and um but I heard that presentation did
did include the public safety uh acreage set aside. It did include the
eco spa. It did include parks and things of that sort. So,
um
and I just would remind all of us that yes, there was uh we do have master
plans and there was that specific master plan for Elephant Rock,
but master plans are a guide and we are not obligated to
um I mean, we need to be um circumspect about what is in them and
and take those things fully into consideration, but it's not
code that we have to follow. You know, we have the option of
going outside coloring outside the lines, if you will. Thank you very much,
Peter. I was I was on the advisory committee. I worked with Susan on that.
Yeah. And it's kind of a odd it's new point
what Susan bringing up because like you said, the cabins were torn down and made
into an open space. Uh there's discussion about the ball
baseball field becoming a a soccer field or something like that.
And that's been tabled and and Reed Weeks got involved and the
parks came up with a scheme of modifying the back buildings and
it first started out where uh
there were two potential buyers back in the day. One to
take over the whole Elephant Rock property.
» Actually, that was still in the under a lease situation.
» Yeah, lease for 15 years, but they ran into financing problems cuz if you can't
own the properties, it's tough to get financing.
And then Cabrillo, which is a restaurant in Springs, was going to take over the
main main building and make it into a restaurant wedding venue type of thing.
And they went away.
And then the advisory committee came in and we
tried to we came up with some ideas on how to make use of all the buildings and
as as Dennis mentioned, you know, like the cabins that were
back and forth between there was the arts group that wanted to make them into
artist centers and and then the Rollins offered to take
over the cabins and but then we got into asbestos mitigation
battles. And I think the main building has the
same issue of asbestos in there, so I'm kind of curious on the buyers for
the main building, which is that lot, too.
is what they plan to do with that. And And I know when it was Tim and Amy got
involved, it became kind of before Glenn took over and
they made some stipulations like I think with KCRE they were
» [clears throat] >> a $50,000 commission provided they meet
this criteria. Right. That the town gets at least a half a million dollars in
money somehow. And the goal was not to have a church or
whatnot because there's no property taxes or
sales tax. It's it's kind of a it's a downer if you put a church in
there or a non-profit. So they want to make a
there's some talk about making a boutique hotel,
but I'm you know, my biggest concern is that
building is how many years now? It's four or five
years now since since we got it and Well, it was in disrepair when it was
gifted to the town in the first place, so
» Yeah, the roof has holes went and Yeah. I think when we toured it one time we
there's a I think a couple pheasants running around in there.
There's also some things with that property that we need to keep in mind
moving forward and that's the setback off of 105. It's a very large It's a I
think it's a 200-ft setback off the off of 105. So, when you talk about when you
go in the gate and off to the right where you would put a public safety
building, if you can imagine that 200 ft off the roadway. Now, we might have to
ask ourselves for a variance [clears throat]
to to change that, but you're you're pushing everything back so far off the
road that those parcels when they get We need to be aware that we subdivide that.
» Whose whose setback is that? That's the setback off of 105 in the code. In our
code or in the state's code? >> our code.
Um personally, I think that that should be
uh looked at very seriously. >> I I don't disagree, but it's just
something we want to keep in mind as we're moving forward. Ask somebody in
the code. It's in the master plan. Yeah, uh but I'll I'll look and see. I thought
it was in code when I looked at it, but maybe it wasn't. No, Glenn, you're
correct cuz when I was on planning we voted I didn't want 200, but the
majority wanted 200. >> Yeah, it's it's the scenic byway thing
in the master plan. But, it's also Yeah, we just need to be
aware of that as long as we go. Okay. And Glenn, it's going to take forever to
get 105 to have deceleration lanes, traffic counts.
» It is. So, that's going to be huge. It is. Yeah. Well, there
Well, there It's already in the meeting. >> depending on how much traffic you see.
If it's over 100 cars or something like that, then you
wouldn't have to make it It is, but I do remember
the conversation where we are already in a we're already in a place where there
should be a deceleration lane. So, any development whatsoever is going to
require it. Um
how what that looks like, who pays for it in the long run, and all that's
you know, whether you could ask CDOT to hold off on that while you're developing
it and then everybody I don't know. I have no idea what's going to happen with
that. But, it's we're already there.
I mean you could put a phone booth in there you're going to
need a deceleration lane. Yes, cuz it's also too kind of pretty close to mission
training. Yeah, it is. Yeah. They're reluctant to have two deceleration
lanes. >> they are.
I believe that we need a motion to adjourn.
Unless there's any other comments.
You mean so what? So what?
Yes. Is it Is it possible for them for Is it Kay
Casey? Casey O'Reilly. Yeah, Casey O'Reilly I mean the gentleman's name.
Greg Kaufman. Oh, Greg Kaufman. Give us some idea of who the potential
buyers are. I know some some of them there was NDAs.
Oh, okay.
It's just kind of a curiosity you know. We'll find out soon enough actually, I
think.
I think it would help make it a selling point.
These people are touchy about Elephant Rock.
Yeah, it's kind of sad now we're six votes to turn down the cabins.
They were trying to make it an art an art district. Yeah.
And then you have I was wondering [clears throat] if we resolved things
with three degrees cuz he's upset because
he throws this resolution says he's get full control of these parks and trails
and Yeah, well. Uh another issue for another day and I
move to adjourn this meeting. Second. All in favor. I. Opposed.
» I.
No No opposition, we are adjourned.