[0:13] I call this special meeting of the Board
of Trustees to order.
[0:19] I'll have a roll call.
[0:23] Tony Beltran Roger Mosley
Ronald Sherman John Marble Dennis Stern
[0:28] Beth Harris Mike Beeson
[0:38] We're still in public, so you can
Erica, would you lead us in the pledge?
[0:49] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[0:55] republic
[1:10] Um we're going to convene to executive
session pursuant to color CRS
[1:16] 24-6-402-4F
[1:19] for the purpose of discussing personal
matter personnel matters related to the
[1:24] recruitment process and qualifications
for the position of town administrator
[1:28] and to meet with the recruitment firm
SGR assisting the town in that process.
[1:35] Did you have anything to add to that or
once we get into executive session, Ken?
[1:40] No, I don't have anything to add. It
does need to be recorded. All right.
[1:44] Yeah.
[1:47] Motion to go into executive session. I
need a motion to go into executive
[1:50] session.
I move we go into executive session.
[1:54] I'll second. All in favor? I I I
>> passes.
[1:58] I have to read
It's the royal weekend.
[2:02] » [laughter]
[2:09] » Um
normally
[2:12] uh
Scott used to get us out of executive
[2:15] session. I don't have the script just
saying it was attorney-client privilege.
[2:19] » Typically, a trustee would make that
motion to go out of executive session.
[2:22] » Okay.
Um I thought we we need a motion to go
[2:27] out?
Okay.
[2:29] I
>> I move we exit executive session.
[2:34] I'll second. All in favor? I. Motion
passes.
[2:41] And that's it? So now we
>> We don't read anything else? Um I never
[2:45] have in the past. I'm not
Okay.
[2:48] Uh it's a little bit little bit
different than what
[3:33] I call to order this regular Board of
Trustees meeting for Thursday, April
[3:37] 23rd, 2026. It is now 6:00 p.m.
Uh roll call.
[3:45] Jody Beltran, present. Roger Mosley.
Audrey Shirga. John Marvel. Dennis
[3:51] Stern. Beth Harris. Mike Beeson.
We also have our town attorney Kent
[3:56] Whitmer, our town clerk Erica Romero,
Grant,
[4:02] our deputy clerk, and Chief Smith, our
interim administrator present.
[4:08] Um if you'll join me in a invocation,
[4:14] um
[4:17] and
obviously the purpose of the invocation
[4:21] is to humble ourselves to
um realize that we don't have all the
[4:27] answers and that we need as much help as
we can get from every quarter.
[4:32] And so
I am looking to the divine
[4:37] for that help and therefore, heavenly
father,
[4:42] as I just said,
we confess our limitations
[4:48] and we ask you to
guide us in all of our decisions
[4:53] and considering our position,
guide us in all our position all of our
[4:59] decisions
regarding the governance of the town of
[5:02] Palmer Lake. We ask this in your name.
Amen.
[5:08] Um Matt Stefan, would you lead us in the
Pledge of Allegiance, please?
[5:39] Erica, do we have any presentations
or introductions?
[5:44] No, we We that as a place where we
get to that on the next time. All right.
[5:49] Uh next up is our consent agenda. Items
under the consent agenda may be acted
[5:55] upon by one motion.
If in the judgment of a board member
[5:59] [snorts]
a consent agenda item requires
[6:02] discussion, the item can be placed on
the regular agenda for discussion or
[6:06] action.
Uh
[6:08] the only thing on the congent consent
agenda tonight is are the minutes from
[6:13] April 9th, 2026.
Any questions or discussion about the
[6:17] minutes? I do, Mayor.
At the last board meeting, without
[6:23] declaring a recess or emergency
the mayor left his chair and walked over
[6:28] to the town attorney for lengthy,
private, secret conversation.
[6:34] No mention of the reason was needed
provided to the board, no agenda item
[6:39] reference, no tabletop document provided
to board members.
[6:45] It indicates a clear lack of
transparency, which is part of the BOT
[6:48] mission.
To foster trust through effective
[6:51] communication and transparency.
I'm concerned that this is a clear
[6:55] violation of the OML and board member
ground rules.
[7:00] Therefore, the minutes from the April
9th BOT meeting are incomplete and
[7:04] possibly missing an important section.
I have two requests.
[7:09] Town attorney provide a legal meeting
code, resolution or ordinance that gives
[7:13] the mayor and or the town attorney the
right to ignore the above.
[7:17] Two, include in public record the
conversation, the agenda item, and the
[7:22] discussion. Thank you.
Uh I'll be the first to uh
[7:27] um
respond.
[7:30] I
uh
[7:33] humbly apologize. It was not the best
interest of transparency for me to do
[7:39] that.
Um
[7:42] it was just a
question about
[7:45] uh process or procedure, but I'll let um
Mr. Whitmore fill in the blanks.
[7:52] » [snorts]
>> Yes, so uh Trustee Yurka
[7:56] uh I did address this with uh the mayor
after the meeting, and
[8:01] um
optically it was not good. It's not how
[8:05] you should um conduct things in a public
meeting.
[8:09] Um legally speaking, I don't believe it
was a violation of open meeting law. It
[8:14] was a minor procedural question. The
question involved uh whether or not the
[8:21] three candidates for planning commission
that came in late
[8:25] um had to be uh considered or not.
And my response was it's there's no
[8:33] authority one way or the other, so it's
a judgment call.
[8:37] Um but I did um admonish the mayor
afterwards that um this is something
[8:43] that should be done in a public meeting.
Um if it was more of a substantive
[8:48] question, then it probably would have
been a violation of open meeting law.
[8:53] I I guess what I said, you know,
for me it would be appropriate to call
[8:57] for a recess to confirm.
Well, that's just my opinion.
[9:02] Thank you.
>> Yeah, it and I apologize. It was my
[9:05] first meeting. Um
I was caught a little bit off guard.
[9:10] Uh in the future, I probably would
recommend that course of action.
[9:16] Does that um
Uh I want to make sure it was in the
[9:20] minutes. Okay. in your discussion. All
right. And since this was related to the
[9:24] agenda item, I
I you know, I I defer to the attorney.
[9:28] Will it be sufficient that it's in these
minutes? Yeah. Responding to those
[9:34] minutes. Yeah, I think so.
He said
[9:37] so.
I would just need the attorney's advice.
[9:42] I would just need to look to Kent
um
[9:45] because I wasn't I wasn't able to
transcribe that conversation of how I
[9:49] would appropriately document that in the
minutes.
[9:54] I think you can document it just as I
stated in this meeting. Okay.
[9:59] Thank you.
Excuse me, uh I think there are some
[10:03] audience members who are having a hard
time hearing. So, either maybe need to
[10:06] move closer to the mic or jack up the
audio.
[10:10] You can't turn it up. Okay, but all of
us I think you have to kind of
[10:13] practically stuff your face in the mic.
Or you can Can you hear me?
[10:17] All right.
So.
[10:22] Thanks.
[10:26] Um having resolved Audis's question, do
I have a motion to um
[10:32] approve the consent agenda?
[10:37] Yeah, I'll make the motion to approve
the consent agenda.
[10:39] I second. All in favor? I. I.
No opposed, so um
[10:46] consent agenda is approved.
We'll move on to the staff and
[10:51] department reports.
Uh we'll start with our interim town
[10:55] administrator and police chief, Glenn
Smith.
[11:00] Turn this on.
[11:03] So, on the police department we're
moving towards the 4th of July planning.
[11:06] So, we're starting to get ready for some
of that. And also you will notice around
[11:11] town some increased parking enforcement.
Um the weather's nice, it's getting
[11:14] warmer, and a lot of people are starting
to park in places they don't really
[11:18] shouldn't park, so
pay attention to where you park, please.
[11:21] Look to see if there's signs, use the
kiosk, because they will be out doing
[11:25] parking enforcement. Um and for admin I
have nothing today.
[11:31] Glenn, can I ask a question? Yep. What
what's your policy on people who park
[11:35] out there in front of them alleys and
hang their back bumpers over the state
[11:38] highway?
You know, and it's only a foot
[11:40] sometimes, but there's pedestrians and
uh all kinds of stuff.
[11:45] My direction to the officers has been
cuz I've seen it on the weekends when it
[11:49] gets busy,
um that if it intrudes into the roadway,
[11:51] they they need a citation.
Um and that we've talked also to um
[11:57] CDOT about some of that area because
where they're parking is not a parking
[12:00] lot. It's um it's right away.
So, it's not really a parking area
[12:05] either side of the road, it's right
away. And some of that will be solved
[12:08] eventually with the sidewalk project
downtown and some of that landscape will
[12:11] change and some of those things will
change, but I've been by there when
[12:14] things stick out in the road and had to
ask people to move them. So, yeah, there
[12:18] there's they should be enforcing them
when they stick out that far. Yeah.
[12:22] Uh
Dennis, didn't we have a idea that we're
[12:24] going to change that to parallel parking
at one point?
[12:28] Parallel parking is included in the
design that the planning commission has
[12:32] been looking at. So, we're not going to
move to that until we get to the
[12:35] downtown.
Well, there's no real way to do it at
[12:39] this point.
>> Okay. I mean, I you know, during the 4th
[12:42] of July, you'll notice that I put cones
there and occupy that area cuz I don't
[12:46] want people park there. So, we park
emergency vehicles there. Um I know it's
[12:51] been convenient for years, but if you
just park in the parking lot, it's like
[12:55] the 20-ft walk
to where you would have been parked on
[12:58] the roadway and much safer or so.
>> Right. Yeah. Okay, thanks.
[13:05] Um
under the town clerk.
[13:12] Mayor, Board of Trustees, um to quickly
highlight the memo included in your
[13:17] packet, I stand for any questions or um
pertaining to any of the information.
[13:24] Uh Planning Commission as noted was
canceled last week due to lack of
[13:28] quorum.
We'll continue to plan. We were looking
[13:31] at a special
some dates. I've I've been pulling
[13:35] availability for all of the commissions.
Unfortunately,
[13:40] we haven't come up with an alternate
date
[13:42] yet. So we'll continue to work with that
or work
[13:46] work to see if we can set a special
meeting. If not,
[13:49] work to establish a quorum for our next
regularly scheduled meeting for the
[13:53] Planning Commission.
We do still have two vacant positions
[13:57] for Planning Commission.
At this time,
[14:01] we're no longer accepting the
applications until directed by the
[14:04] Planning Commission and Board of
Trustees. The I know there was some
[14:07] questions about the last applications.
We had received some applications
[14:13] after the recommendation from the
Planning Commission. We have those
[14:16] applications ready to go to the Planning
Commission in hopes that the Planning
[14:19] Commission again will make a
recommendation to the board. At that
[14:23] time, if the board wants us to reopen or
reestablish or how they want us to do
[14:27] that moving forward, I look to you all
for direction pertaining to that.
[14:33] Any questions on that?
Just to be clear on the Planning
[14:37] Commission Commission. So for them to
move ahead with those three applicants
[14:41] that they have, they need to call a
special meeting in order to make a
[14:44] decision on those three applicants. Is
that right?
[14:47] » Not necessarily a special meeting, but
they need to go in front of the Planning
[14:50] Commission first. And right now we're
trying to schedule a meeting whether it
[14:54] be a regular meeting or a special
meeting. Thank you. You're welcome.
[14:59] Board of Adjustments also has a position
available and
[15:03] we'll work with them to get that
scheduled as well or
[15:08] we don't have any applicants right now
for Board of Adjustments.
[15:12] That is posted though. It is posted.
We're continuing to work on proposals
[15:19] for planning
uh services.
[15:23] As stated in the last meeting, uh DOLA
has provided us a list. We have received
[15:28] communication from two companies that
have submitted us submitted proposals.
[15:33] Um some are willing to service us on an
interim basis. Um
[15:39] and if we want to go for RFP
uh for full-time, we're before I get
[15:45] ahead of myself, we're trying to
evaluate those proposals um hopefully
[15:49] next week and come to the board at the
next meeting with identifying a path
[15:53] forward.
[15:56] Any questions or directions pertaining
to that? Um
[16:01] Nope. Okay.
The fee schedule is forthcoming.
[16:06] Um we have met with uh legal to work on
establishing the priority list. I know
[16:13] Kent will speak to it in his report and
the fee schedule is on that list. Um
[16:19] so
A board workshop um we're looking at a
[16:22] date in May uh to hold a board workshop
with the following items. We did secure
[16:28] May 29th for the Pikes Peak Office of
Emer- with the Pikes Peak Office of
[16:32] Emergency Management and our fire
department. Um
[16:36] they're going to provide a presentation
uh pertaining to all of the above um
[16:43] with emergency management, fire,
evacuation
[16:46] um
emergency preparedness, um evacuation
[16:51] planning, hazard mitigation
um updating our EOP. And so we really
[16:57] look forward to that. They will be here
um
[17:00] on May 29th.
Um
[17:05] some code enforcement updates. We're
continuing uh
[17:09] to enforce code at Elephant Rock Trailer
Park. Again, we have been in contact
[17:14] with some state agencies pertaining to
some issues
[17:17] um at Elephant Rock. We're continuing to
work on that. Um
[17:22] and move forward with
hopefully getting them compliant.
[17:29] Um
CML, we have a board member who was
[17:32] interested in the CML training. I have
uh
[17:35] registered that board member. And just a
reminder, if you did if you do want to
[17:39] attend the CML conference in June, I
will need to know, I believe.
[17:45] Um
I don't know the deadline specifically,
[17:48] but I want to say it's pretty quick.
Um so, check your emails. And if not,
[17:53] reach out to me and if you're interested
in attending.
[17:58] Um Lastly, I received an update. I have
been working with CIRSA, one of the
[18:03] board's um
requirements with me um
[18:08] taking on the treasurer role was to uh
get a bond of a thousand dollars per per
[18:14] our code. Speaking with Jessica, our
CIRSA uh representative, she was able to
[18:19] educate me on why the why the town of
Palmer Lake um hadn't really
[18:25] um enforced that. We We didn't know She
couldn't tell me how long they hadn't
[18:30] required that, but the reason they
hadn't required that bond is our current
[18:34] policy provides
um
[18:38] it already
it provides coverage for any type of um
[18:43] criminal Let me see if I have the
correct
[18:46] um
[18:48] criminal coverage. Um
You all have a memo on your tabletop
[18:54] speaking specifically to that. Um
We reviewed the requirement in
[19:00] coordination with the town's insurance
provider, CIRSA. Through this review, it
[19:04] was determined that the current
insurance practices have evolved and the
[19:08] town's existing policy includes a kind
crime coverage provision that provides
[19:13] protection comparable to and broader
than an individual bond.
[19:18] So, how I understood it is if I were to
get a bond as the treasurer, that bond
[19:23] would only protect me. The current
coverage we have protects me, the town,
[19:29] um the town staff, any board or
commissioners. Um
[19:36] in it so basically everybody.
Um the town's crime policy provides
[19:40] coverage to the organization as a whole
in the event of fraudulent criminal acts
[19:45] including situations involving multiple
employees. So, not just a single
[19:48] employee.
Um in contrast, uh traditional bond
[19:52] applies only to a single individual.
Um the town of Palmer Lake already
[19:57] already maintains this coverage as part
of its existing insurance policy. This
[20:00] approach not only provides broader
protection, but it also is more
[20:04] cost-effective.
Um so at this time, the way she
[20:08] explained it to me and based off of her
advice,
[20:12] um it wouldn't be cost-effective for me
to get a bond. I'm already protected
[20:16] under that crime policy. So, it would
save the town money with having to
[20:20] um spend that money. So, um with you
know, I support Sirso's recommendation
[20:26] and look to the board to see if they
would consider that which would require
[20:29] us to update the code to better reflect
what our current policy and protections
[20:33] are in place.
Um another pro to that, you know, in the
[20:37] event
obviously when we hire a town town
[20:40] administrator, it protects me, it
protects
[20:43] everybody involved in finance along with
the town administrator where if we had a
[20:48] thousand-dollar bond for me now and we
need one for the town administrator,
[20:51] again the cost will just go up.
Um she did provide uh
[20:56] a little bit more of a detailed
spreadsheet of what that coverage looks
[20:59] like in the event the board doesn't feel
that's enough coverage,
[21:03] we have the option to up the coverage.
So, um she felt it was sufficient right
[21:08] now based off of the size of town and
and our budget and liabilities. However,
[21:13] I look to the board for direction moving
forward with that.
[21:19] Uh Erica, comment on that.
Uh you know, I'm interested in chapter
[21:22] two and and that is in chapter two. Now,
that's just one of the five or six
[21:26] things that need to get fixed in there.
I'm sure that we all agree with what
[21:30] you've just uh proposed.
Uh
[21:33] we're covered. We have no need for that.
But, unfortunately, that's also in the
[21:37] CRS, I think. Isn't that Attorney
Whitmer? There's a
[21:41] there's a bond requirement in the CRS.
Yep. Go ahead.
[21:46] Yes, I believe that's correct.
>> we just need to somehow
[21:50] get [clears throat] rid of that or
accept this other
[21:53] uh input as the solution to the problem.
But, it's not the only thing in chapter
[21:58] two. So, trust me, when we get to that
workshop, there'll be a number of things
[22:02] that we'll need to fix. Thanks.
[22:06] Do we need to make a motion, by the way,
to
[22:09] approve that? Yes. Yes.
Yes.
[22:14] Well, I'll make a motion to approve the
coverage that we currently have
[22:19] in replacement for the bond that's
required in
[22:23] town code chapter two.
I'll second.
[22:27] All in favor? I. I. I. No opposed.
Motion passes.
[22:34] I All I have. I have a question for you.
Yep. Oh, sorry. Go ahead and finish your
[22:38] report. I'll come back to the question.
Okay. Second, um
[22:41] we had received some questions from
Trustee Harris pertaining to our
[22:44] website. Uh Christie, who is the project
one of the project managers for the
[22:49] website redesign, provided a memo
outlining some information and where
[22:53] we're at in that in that project along
with the answers to uh Trustee Harris's
[23:00] question.
Questions, in the event um you have
[23:04] further questions or clarifications,
we're
[23:07] kind of just starting off in the
process, but we'll continue to provide
[23:09] updates um and answer any questions as
we move forward. But we're super excited
[23:14] about it. We have a great team.
Um we've already, you know, received
[23:18] some content from departments um
you know, again, our our website is
[23:22] something that has been neglected and
and our mission to be transparent and
[23:27] more
um visible, I guess, to our residents.
[23:30] So, we're we're excited um
and
[23:34] that's where we're at.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that
[23:37] update.
Um
[23:39] » [clears throat]
>> I have a question.
[23:41] Um at what
is it at the next board meeting we're
[23:44] going to have a swearing-in ceremony for
the town attorney with this appointment?
[23:49] Is usually every It is a oath of office.
Yeah. Do you want to speak to that or do
[23:55] you want me to?
[23:58] It was supposed to happen before I
actually start acting on your behalf, so
[24:02] Eric and I did it in her office. So, I
have taken the oath.
[24:06] I swore.
It's kind of traditional to do it in
[24:11] I'm fine with doing it again in a
ceremonial sense, if you want. Oh,
[24:15] that's
Yeah.
[24:17] » [snorts]
>> Yeah, and just I'm I'm glad It was a
[24:19] great question. So, normally when we do
do it in front of the board,
[24:23] a lot of the times it's ceremonial
because once, like he said, you know,
[24:27] when I stepped in as deputy clerk, I
took it that day in John's office and
[24:30] then obviously took it in front of you,
so.
[24:34] Um can you s- uh would you be able to
summarize the website project um
[24:42] and where where we're going with that?
Cuz the way I read it is going to cost
[24:47] us $26,000 and we're looking at a total
rebuild. Is that Is that the summary? Is
[24:53] that the conclusion?
Yeah, I mean, that's what was budgeted.
[24:57] This was a project that we were actually
supposed to start, I believe, last
[25:01] October that we haven't, you know,
there's some compliance issues that um
[25:07] we need to meet. It encompasses pretty
much a complete redesign, relaunch of
[25:12] our of our website. Um CivicPlus or
yeah, CivicPlus, who um hosts our
[25:18] website, no longer supports the version
that we have. So, we really have no
[25:24] choice um
it you know, they did allow us
[25:28] um they were very patient with us moving
forward because we're already we've
[25:33] already exceeded their
their deadline of how long they can
[25:36] continue to to keep us active and live.
So, um I think there's three left and
[25:41] we're one of the three.
And uh so, when will this
[25:47] uh project be completed? What's the
What's the end date that we'll have a
[25:51] new website? Yeah, so I believe there's
a there's a certain timeline.
[25:58] I think it's June.
[26:02] Um
Yeah, so in the memo Oh, there it is.
[26:06] Yeah, June 24th.
[26:11] So, we've changed the date twice in the
last week. Um June of 20 So, the upgrade
[26:17] is expected to launch in June of 2026.
Okay. Yeah.
[26:21] We were trying we were shooting for May,
but
[26:23] » is there will there be a lot of bugs to
work out or is it going to be pretty
[26:27] much
>> No, I think ours is so outdated, we have
[26:30] to manually update it and kind of rig it
to get what we need to be done. I don't
[26:37] know how else to say that, but um the
new website is more user-friendly for
[26:42] not only the people utilizing it, but
the people maintaining it. Um
[26:47] it all the way, you know, it's just it's
a lot more simplified and and
[26:52] accessible, I would say.
>> Hopefully it's it's not too many bugs
[26:56] that have to be worked out. Yeah, I mean
with everything there's probably going
[26:59] to be bugs, but we'll be prepared to
tackle them as they come. We have a good
[27:03] committee working on it and I feel we're
going to be able to
[27:06] bring the board in the town a good
product moving forward. All right. Just
[27:10] reading between the lines of the memo,
uh
[27:13] that was very thoroughly responded to
firstly, so thank you for that. Um they
[27:18] they they bought bought a content
management system, which basically lets
[27:22] you do very simple uh updates, very
easy, very straightforward. Uh very
[27:28] user-friendly.
So it'll be it'll be a lot easier and
[27:31] also uh the
the uh accessibility standards that we
[27:36] were talking about that I was asking
about, so
[27:39] there's a a standard called WCAG and
this is a standard industry standard
[27:42] standard for compliant or for um
accessibility.
[27:46] And the US government even will set a
standard as well as of course
[27:51] international
uh the international community.
[27:55] So this this content management system
will allow this town to remain in
[27:59] compliance with the most uh the most
recently required standard for
[28:04] accessibility. So it gets it takes away
some risk for the town for us to use
[28:08] this system.
>> That's always good. Right.
[28:10] » Yeah.
And I believe the migration there's no
[28:13] cost, you know, obviously in in 2024 is
when we budgeted and paid for
[28:20] the product. So there's a little bit of
it it In another branch of that also,
[28:24] this is the part where we're going to
move to the agenda meeting management
[28:27] portion, like what I develop your
meetings and your um
[28:31] agendas. Again, that's a complete
dinosaur, you know, some of the
[28:36] issues and and hiccups that we have now
on the website HTML and and things like
[28:41] that, it's because we're so obsolete and
behind. So we're moving um we're in
[28:45] training right now on that new product,
which will tie into the website and
[28:51] and all the other fun stuff. So, I think
once it all comes together, you'll
[28:55] you'll really see a a good return on
your investment. Is there any aspect of
[29:00] this new website that um
uh
[29:04] helps or or moves towards our ability to
stream better or do [clears throat]
[29:11] uh
you know Not at this time, completely
[29:13] two separate.
>> Two separate Yeah. Okay.
[29:17] I have a
a comment and a follow-up question on
[29:20] your report. So, first comment, thank
you and the rest of the staff uh
[29:25] including police for the continued
efforts on
[29:28] uh helping those properties at the
Elephant Rock uh
[29:32] trailer park come into compliance. I
know it it can be a
[29:35] uh a process to get that done. And like
you said, you've been
[29:40] uh doing a lot of due diligence on
trying to find different resources to
[29:43] help folks. So, that is very much
appreciated. I know it's uh not an easy
[29:47] task.
The question I had the on the workshop
[29:51] updates,
so [clears throat] we had talked last
[29:54] time about actually having a workshop to
help schedule workshops. Are we doing
[29:59] that or is this meant to Is that first
workshop listed there meant to be that?
[30:05] Yeah, so the first workshop is the one
that um
[30:10] once we got our attorney retained, as
mentioned in the last meeting, I think
[30:14] my best advice was taking kind of a
holistic approach because a lot of the
[30:18] items kind of overlapped with estab-
establishing or reviewing um board board
[30:24] basics, board roles and
responsibilities, um board conduct um
[30:29] the agenda requests, public comment, you
know, redesigning kind of our our
[30:33] agenda. Those kind of fall
all all in one area. I think we would
[30:39] m- and again, my suggestion would be to
start there, and then we can identify um
[30:44] I know Kent and I have talked of an idea
moving forward with how to accommodate
[30:48] workshops and our business or our
regular meetings where I think we can be
[30:53] a little bit more cognizant of the cost
of our
[30:57] attorney and his fees and
and the meetings you know just for full
[31:02] transparency one of the ideas is having
two meetings a month although they're
[31:06] very important the demand on on staff
and and the turnaround of of work is is
[31:12] hard to keep up with I mean we can do it
but
[31:15] an idea would be to maybe have a regular
business meeting a month and then
[31:21] identify in the second Thursday as like
a workshop working meeting where we can
[31:25] really plan and and work on
you know priorities and strategies and
[31:29] our issues at hand and then prepare the
business items moving forward to kind of
[31:33] move business along a little bit
quicker.
[31:35] So there's a lot of ideas again that's
not some I mean you know that we have
[31:40] but I think that conversation or that
again that workshop
[31:45] would be where we would have the
conversation pertaining to the workshops
[31:48] so Thank you.
[31:52] Thank you Erica
um
[31:54] Mr. Attorney
[32:03] Thank you Mr. Mayor
um
[32:06] So
Erica and Chief Smith kind of
[32:12] gave me an overview of how
attorney Cropp used to give his report
[32:17] and so I'm going to try to
generally stay along the same outline as
[32:23] what he would do and
it sounds like he would update the board
[32:27] initially on any pending litigation
matters.
[32:30] This past week Erica connected me with
DJ Goldfarb who is
[32:37] CERSA retained counsel
that is handling
[32:42] two of the CERSA
covered claims that the town is involved
[32:47] in right now.
One claim
[32:51] involves Trustee
Mosley versus the Town of Palmer Lake
[32:57] and it and I as I understand it it
involves the
[33:01] a question of whether or not the mayor
was properly installed.
[33:04] The status according to DJ on that
case right now is that
[33:11] there was a preliminary injunction
injunction hearing which was apparently
[33:15] not granted
and there's been no movement on that
[33:19] case since that action by the court.
The other um
[33:24] case
also involves um
[33:29] Trustee Mosley and
um
[33:32] I hope I pronounced this correctly Roger
Miss Brod Brodzik? Okay. Versus the Town
[33:38] of Palmer Lake and I understand that
that is essentially
[33:43] um
some form of a fraud case
[33:46] and it's been litigated
and now it's on appeal
[33:51] and I understand it's in the briefing
stage right now so there's no decision
[33:54] on that.
So that's the update from DJ Goldfarb
[33:59] on those two matters.
um
[34:04] So since you guys
installed me as your town attorney
[34:10] not complaining but I really haven't
taken a day off since then.
[34:15] It's been crazy.
I asked
[34:20] Erica to put together a spreadsheet of
all the outstanding
[34:27] legal issues that are pending business.
And so that's what she's handing out to
[34:32] you right now. You can see there's 33 uh
potential matters on there.
[34:37] Many of these I've worked on or been
briefed on. Um many more I haven't even
[34:44] touched yet.
Uh
[34:47] I asked because there's such a
a volume of matters to deal with
[34:52] that we've got to do some triage here
and figure out, you know, where where is
[34:57] my efforts going to be directed?
What's what's most important? And so,
[35:02] uh Chief Glenn and Erica went through
them
[35:06] and over on the left-hand side, you'll
see where they put a
[35:09] a one, two, or a three.
So, that's how they
[35:13] they grouped them, one of course being
highest priority,
[35:17] three being the lowest priority.
You can see that
[35:20] about 80% of them are one.
So, I uh
[35:25] you know, without um
talking about each one tonight,
[35:30] I asked if Erica couldn't hand this
spreadsheet out to you folks to
[35:34] take home with you,
give some thought to, and then in the
[35:39] coming
meeting,
[35:42] give us some direction on where do you
want us to focus your our attention. I
[35:46] mean, I think they have a pretty good
idea and they're focusing me right now,
[35:51] but we need input from the board as
well.
[35:55] So.
[35:58] Uh Quick Sure. Absolutely. When would
you like that feedback from the board?
[36:05] And would you like it in the context of
a public meeting?
[36:09] I think it would be best.
Yeah.
[36:12] There's there's no reason to have an
executive session on prioritization.
[36:16] Yeah.
Versus just um making our priorities and
[36:20] emailing them to
uh
[36:23] Erica to pass on to you? Well, I think
it's a policy discussion, Mr. Mayor. You
[36:28] know, what is giving what is given
priority here.
[36:33] So, it's probably something that should
be a collective decision by this board.
[36:37] Okay, understood. Yeah. If I may, Kent.
Um
[36:42] Mayor, Board of Trustees, on this
spreadsheet as well, some of these
[36:45] priorities, although they're identified
as a one, you know, in the in the
[36:49] status, we tried to
best kind of, you know, some of them are
[36:52] routine and when they come in, you know,
we have to get them to Kent. Some of
[36:56] them we really don't have the
flexibility due to um dates or
[37:00] requirements that we've already
exceeded. So, just understand or at
[37:05] least um be willing to hear feedback
from staff of why at that time, if
[37:10] you're like, why is this a number one
priority, you know, it it's not
[37:14] there's probably reason behind it is how
we've determined and and it's we tried
[37:19] to best describe that under the status,
but Actually, that's that actually
[37:22] speaks to exactly what my next question
was going to be, which is, can I can we
[37:26] get a sense for like, are some of these
are we out of compliance or something on
[37:31] some of these? Like, to me, like a
regulatory or compliance thing is
[37:34] usually top of the top of the list, the
top of the top.
[37:37] » Mhm. Uh and or um
you know, uh
[37:41] it's maybe a revenue generating thing
that's pending. That to me seems like
[37:45] second, but, you know, of course, the
board can So, I will say and and
[37:50] probably about 95% of the ones that are
determined one priority, there's some
[37:56] type of compliance issue. I would have a
hard time probably removing any of them
[38:02] um from a priority one unless Kent
legally was able to provide us some type
[38:09] of extension. You know, some of them are
contracts that are already have exceeded
[38:13] the due due dates.
Um
[38:17] you know, land use issues, obviously,
those are
[38:21] um
you know, they've been super patient and
[38:23] we're past
again, um, ADUs, the state's already
[38:27] adopted the laws there. We've got to
implement and and bring our code up to
[38:31] standards,
you know, pertaining to that. So,
[38:35] um, our fee schedule, we're way behind
on on state fees that have increased, so
[38:39] we're losing revenue there, um, until we
get that that updated. So, yeah, um,
[38:44] we've taken all that into consideration,
obviously,
[38:47] um, when we go more in more detail with
this, well, I'd be happy to provide more
[38:51] information, but just so you're aware,
we we spent some time really developing
[38:56] this list and this is just the list of
ones, twos, and threes. The fours and
[39:00] fives are not we don't need we didn't
feel we needed to triage them, as Kent
[39:04] said, right now.
[39:07] The other element I'm curious about, uh,
whether it was taken into consideration
[39:11] was the
scale of the work. So, is it a,
[39:15] you know, uh, in my world, we call work
like extra small to like a t-shirt size,
[39:20] like extra small to extra large. And,
uh, is it an extra small that we're
[39:24] dealing with or is it extra bunch of
extra larges, you know? That's that's
[39:27] what I'm kind of curious about and how
you triage that based on the size, if at
[39:30] all. Semantics, I get, you know, so
extra small, extra large, we,
[39:35] um,
identified some as routine, um,
[39:40] and that's kind of how we identified
like ongoing or routine contracts, MOUs,
[39:45] yeah.
Yeah, and just to add to what Erica
[39:50] said,
it's
[39:52] uh, the focus has just been reactive so
far.
[39:55] It's been
whatever,
[39:58] um, you know, is the most emergent at
the moment. Okay. And there's been a lot
[40:02] of emergencies.
[40:06] Okay, ask can we be mindful,
um,
[40:09] some of these have constraints that will
expire if we don't address them
[40:13] immediately and I think we'll talk more
about that later. Majority of them have.
[40:18] Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah.
Okay.
[40:22] Yeah, just just reminder on there's one
item
[40:25] uh before you came on board where the
board
[40:29] gave direction to revoke the concealed
carry gun option to carry in the town
[40:34] hall.
That's under what? So, the way we frame
[40:37] those, those are ongoing routine
resolutions based off of board direction
[40:41] that local staff can kind of
do the legwork and then he'll help
[40:45] review it and bring it back. All right.
forward. I'll I'll send an email
[40:49] reminder.
Yeah.
[40:52] Okay.
Um I'm going to
[40:56] talk more in the business item that's in
the next agenda item about
[41:01] uh what was discussed at the last
meeting with regard to the hearing that
[41:05] was voted on.
Couple of items just in my general
[41:08] attorney report though that I'd like to
touch on before we get there.
[41:12] Uh
a couple or
[41:15] several of the trustees have
reached out to me directly outside of
[41:20] general meetings and
you know, I appreciate um that they want
[41:25] to have access to me.
Um I've tried to communicate though and
[41:29] I just want to restate it to the board
in total that that's probably not an
[41:35] appropriate um
way to utilize me and the reason is that
[41:41] uh
I represent the board collectively
[41:45] and when one trustee reaches out to me,
that's not really the board giving
[41:51] direction. That's one trustee giving
direction and the collective board may
[41:56] not agree with um me utilizing or
using that resource in that way.
[42:03] That and uh
if there's a question uh by one trustee
[42:09] and
it may be something that is uh
[42:13] in the minds of other trustees and it
should probably be brought up at a
[42:17] general meeting and discussed in the
open so that everybody is on the same
[42:22] page and knows what the questions and
the answers are
[42:25] to the town trip to the town attorney.
So I would just respectfully request
[42:29] that
um communications [snorts] towards me be
[42:33] channeled
um at public meetings like this
[42:38] or through the mayor
or through the town administrator
[42:42] through me.
[42:46] Um
that's
[42:49] really all I had as far as my general
report. Mr. Mayor, I can move to the
[42:54] next agenda item if you'd like.
Uh
[42:58] unless there's any further questions on
your report so far and I think we have
[43:03] one. Yeah, attorney Whitner, before you
move, I have two items I'd like guidance
[43:07] on.
Uh the first one is mayor pro tem.
[43:11] The CRS in title 31 says that at first
meeting the board will select and in our
[43:18] code it says within 30 days the board
will select the mayor will nominate and
[43:22] the board will select.
Uh we lost our mayor pro tem on the 4th
[43:26] of October. That was in another week
that'll be 7 months ago.
[43:30] So I would like direction or legal
advice
[43:34] for the town to get on with that and
uh select or um adopt a mayor pro tem.
[43:42] In the same light uh the CRS in that
same paragraph which is 31-4-303
[43:48] paragraph 3
it says the board may select a clerk pro
[43:53] tem to perform the duties of the clerk.
Uh 3 weeks ago on Wednesday night we had
[43:59] a a one-time uh
allowed uh grant uh supported one of our
[44:06] uh meetings and which is perfectly fine.
But, we had asked, two of us had asked
[44:11] for a meeting last December, and Grant
couldn't support that meeting.
[44:15] So, I would just like to make it clear
that the CRS does not have any guidance
[44:22] for a one-time ad hoc clerk. Now, there
may I may be wrong about that, Eric.
[44:28] There may be a provision that you know
about that I don't. But, what I would
[44:31] prefer is that we
move forward with a clerk pro tem so
[44:37] that we've got a deputy who can actually
support the board. And
[44:41] I know there's some training and
certifications required, but we had a
[44:46] program established by Don Collins,
which consists of five files attached to
[44:50] a an email, which I know that our clerk
has.
[44:54] And so, if we can't appoint the deputy
clerk with the right authority tonight
[44:59] or in the next meeting,
I would like to understand the training
[45:03] program, when we're going to get to that
point, and what your direction would be.
[45:07] So, those two items, I would appreciate
uh
[45:11] your input. And doesn't have to be
tonight, but I would certainly like to
[45:14] address this by the next board meeting.
[45:18] Did you want to
You can't
[45:21] Either way. Okay.
Um
[45:25] Well, I can I can speak to the mayor pro
tem issue cuz I've looked at the state
[45:30] statutes and the town code on that
issue.
[45:33] Um I have not looked into your question
about town clerk
[45:38] pro tem.
So, with respect to mayor pro tem,
[45:42] um I agree with your reading of the town
code that at the first meeting of each
[45:46] year,
uh the mayor is to
[45:50] uh
choose somebody with the direction of
[45:52] the board or the consent of the board.
And then, at the state statute level,
[45:57] which is um
a little bit more
[46:01] uh
uh
[46:03] gives a little more more latitude for
choosing that individual.
[46:07] It says that the uh town board actually
has the authority to choose a mayor pro
[46:13] tem.
So,
[46:15] uh
my recommendation would be that a mayor
[46:18] pro tem be chosen.
[46:22] And do you mean immediately or could we
do that in the next board meeting?
[46:24] » You could do it at the next board
meeting. Okay. And so,
[46:28] Erica, could you make sure that that
agenda item gets on the next meeting?
[46:32] And with respect to the clerk, I I can
look into that by the next meeting.
[46:37] » needs a little bit more look. I agree.
Okay. Cuz there's a training program,
[46:41] obviously, that's required for that.
[46:45] And I don't want to really speak to it
right now until I consult with Kent.
[46:48] However,
um
[46:51] I would like to remind the board of the
maybe
[46:55] to review the roles and responsibilities
as trustee members and
[46:59] identify the administrative functions
and some functions that in person that
[47:03] are pertaining to personnel um and how
those are designated and delegated um
[47:09] and that's within my authority
um to do so. And and there's guidelines
[47:14] that walks me through that. So, it's a
little bit of a bigger conversation. Um
[47:19] and I'm happy to discuss that with Kent
and he can probably sum it up and and
[47:23] word it a little bit clearer for you
all, but um I'm definitely aware of of
[47:27] the process of having a deputy clerk and
what my requirements are in fulfilling
[47:32] the role as a clerk um with performing
meetings. I would like the board I
[47:36] respectfully uh request the board
um
[47:41] to understand I make all best efforts
when
[47:45] um
requirements such as special meetings uh
[47:49] are requested to make sure I fulfill it
um
[47:54] best I can. Um
and I really am not going to speak any
[47:57] more to that.
Um,
[47:59] but I will work with Kent um on better
explaining that process to the board.
[48:08] Thank you.
Seeing no other questions, uh
[48:13] our first business item is discussion
and possible action regarding
[48:16] establishment and codification of Town
of Palmer Lake hearing procedure
[48:22] pursuant to CRS 31 4-307.
Mr. Whitmer.
[48:30] Uh, can I make a point of order?
[48:34] At the last BLT meeting, a vote was
taken pursue a hearing regarding a
[48:38] trustee.
And I brought to the board's attention
[48:41] several serious legal concerns of mine
that I didn't feel were addressed in
[48:45] written legal opinion by our town
attorney who advises on a mission stated
[48:49] the following.
Well, we're having open session now, and
[48:53] so yeah, it was probably a mistake to do
an executive session on this issue
[48:57] previously. That's being remedied.
Myself and two other trustees were not
[49:03] privy to this executive session, have
not been provided an opportunity to
[49:07] review the video recording.
In addition, the agenda item indicated
[49:11] directions to staff would be given,
which should have been discussed and
[49:15] given board [clears throat] concurrence
after the BLT reconvened meeting in open
[49:18] session.
So, are there
[49:21] And the attorney since then has come out
with a confidential memo that's not
[49:25] available to the public yet.
However, it talks more about the process
[49:30] of the hearing rather than whether or
not
[49:35] the investigation was properly
authorized,
[49:38] whether public funds were expended
absent a board vote, what process is
[49:43] required when allegations involve an
elected official rather than employee,
[49:47] and what disclosure process safeguards.
So, I
[49:51] I'm kind of asking is, you know, my
fellow board members, do you really feel
[49:54] comfortable moving forward with
discussing how the hearing's going to be
[49:59] held, [clears throat]
rather than whether or not the hearing
[50:02] or you or even at that point yet?
[50:08] So, you know, my most obvious way to
make I will make
[50:12] is to direct the town attorney to review
and provide written legal opinion of the
[50:16] circumstances regarding this to ensure
legal compliance with statutory
[50:20] references
and to temporarily dismiss agenda item
[50:24] number five.
[50:28] Any discussion?
[50:31] Otis, I I think these are two distinct
items.
[50:34] Tonight is to talk about procedurally
codifying
[50:39] a hearing
and what you're talking about, and I
[50:42] agree with you, is once we get to that
point, should we proceed with the
[50:47] hearing, but I don't think that's what
tonight's agenda item is about.
[50:57] Anybody else?
Beth, did you have something?
[51:02] Um
I kind of need more more time to think
[51:05] about the things that Otis has brought
up. Uh
[51:08] but uh I mean, I'm
yeah, I need I need more Understood.
[51:14] » Yeah, I need more time to think about
that.
[51:15] » So, I agree with um
Mike, Otis, and and regards to that uh
[51:20] this agenda item is not necessarily
specific to Roger, although Roger's um
[51:28] issues
are the catalyst.
[51:31] But, tonight's agenda item is about
anytime this might happen to any one of
[51:37] us
in the future.
[51:40] So, I I agree with Mr. Beason that it
there are two distinct things.
[51:46] Uh so, I think we can actually move
forward on both. That Mr. Whitmer, and
[51:51] he's got something to say about this.
Uh,
[51:54] can
do as you ask in regards to creating a
[51:59] legal opinion.
But, we can also go forward with
[52:04] uh,
having this in our town policy so that
[52:07] in the unfortunate event that it ever
happens to anybody in the future,
[52:12] that we've already got a process in
place.
[52:16] Mr. Whitmer.
Uh, Mr. Mayor, you said it very well.
[52:20] That's what I was going to say. Is they
are really two distinct things. And but
[52:24] they were uh, tonight's agenda item was
brought about by last week's or 2 weeks
[52:30] ago the vote to go move forward.
Um,
[52:34] so, we could uh, look into the questions
that Trustee Eureka raises, and I could
[52:41] give an opinion on that. Um, I obviously
wasn't around when those things
[52:47] occurred. So, it would take some
investigation. Yeah, that was my concern
[52:51] cuz you were when this came up 2 weeks
ago, you were only 4 or 3 days that
[52:56] and I kind of wanted to give you more
time to look into it before we move
[53:01] forward.
Yeah. So, I mean, this could take two
[53:05] paths. Um, and they they could both
happen simultaneously.
[53:10] Um, I think it would be a good thing to
have a procedure in place for the future
[53:17] because um, it you can see what kind of
chaos and turmoil it causes when you
[53:23] don't have a procedure in place.
And I could do um,
[53:28] investigation and a legal opinion and
conclude that maybe the process was done
[53:33] incorrectly or I could conclude that it
was done correctly.
[53:38] Um, I'm not sure
I'm really the proper person. I need to
[53:42] give that some thought. It may
be better suited towards an independent
[53:47] third party, but
I'll give that some thought.
[53:51] Um so, I think we could go ahead with
the agenda item
[53:56] um on that basis that it's more general
in scope and not specific to Trustee
[54:01] Mosley's situation.
[54:05] I I defer to my fellow board members.
If they feel that way,
[54:11] so be it.
Okay.
[54:13] Um so, we'll do a a little bit of a roll
call, thumbs up, thumbs down, Tony. I
[54:19] Excuse me, what are we voting on? We're
not voting. We're We're just giving our
[54:23] opinions. About what?
>> About
[54:27] proceeding with creating process for the
unfortunate situation of a of a
[54:34] trustee having a hearing and all those
issues.
[54:39] Not necessarily specific to you.
>> No, I just want to know which one we
[54:42] were talking about.
>> Okay.
[54:45] Tony Beltran, I concur with Attorney
Whitmer's recommendation. Uh I concur.
[54:51] Um same.
Yeah, I I don't see a problem if it's
[54:54] just talking about procedure. I agree.
I agree. Okay. I agree. As long as we
[55:00] Yeah, the discussion and possi- possible
action. Let's not jump to making a
[55:05] process until we've discussed it. That's
all.
[55:07] Yeah.
[55:10] Okay.
Um and if I can interject, um the way I
[55:14] understand it, this is uh to codify
requires an ordinance.
[55:20] And ordinances require 30 days of public
comment and stuff like that once we
[55:24] establish what that ordinance would be.
So, this is not anything that's going to
[55:29] happen
uh to tomorrow, you know? I mean, it's
[55:33] it's going to take time. So, let's get
with it as far as I'm concerned.
[55:38] Correct. Yeah.
[55:40] So, maybe a little background for the
folks in the audience.
[55:45] Um
[55:47] Uh
at last meeting,
[55:50] uh my first meeting,
the board took a vote to have a hearing
[55:56] pursuant to state statute
to evaluate whether or not to retain
[56:02] Trustee Mosley for
um Summit Land charges that um were
[56:06] handed to him at that meeting.
Uh
[56:10] after the meeting, um
I
[56:14] looked at
uh if there was any
[56:17] uh guidance, legal guidance, for how to
conduct that hearing,
[56:22] and ran into multiple brick walls.
I found a
[56:27] uh person, an attorney in my firm,
uh
[56:31] a litigator that has had some experience
representing a trustee in another
[56:37] jurisdiction on this exact issue.
And so, I tasked him with looking into
[56:43] this and analyzing it and coming up with
recommendations.
[56:49] So,
you received um a memorandum that uh
[56:54] breaks this down step by step, uh what
the authority is that he found,
[57:00] and what his recommendations were.
You saw in the memo um
[57:07] uh that there
uh is scant history of this ever being
[57:12] done in the state. It's happened like
less than a handful of times.
[57:17] Uh
the one Supreme Court case is from the
[57:20] 1800s on this.
Uh there was a US Magistrate case in
[57:25] 2012 that um that Magistrate opined on
how it should be conducted.
[57:32] There's been a few small jurisdictions
that have codified the procedure for how
[57:37] they should
run in the if it's ever
[57:41] um
to be done in their jurisdiction, but
[57:45] very few have codified it.
>> [clears throat]
[57:48] » So, the conclusion of that memo is that
if you
[57:54] there are
there are multiple competing interests
[57:57] that need to be addressed.
And there's multiple constitutional
[58:01] considerations that need to be
addressed.
[58:05] And rights protected both on the accused
or
[58:10] the person who's
potentially losing their position with
[58:14] the town
and the rights of the town to
[58:18] uh prosecute that action.
So, reading the scant authority that we
[58:24] have uh together along with other
general legal principles for this type
[58:30] of a situation
the conclusion was that you
[58:34] you need to do more than less. And what
that means is you need to have a
[58:39] judicial like proceeding.
Like it like you're in uh say District
[58:45] Court in El Paso County, for example.
Now, that doesn't mean
[58:50] you have a judge come in, you know, you
can hire a hearing officer.
[58:55] But, it does mean that people
uh on both sides of the action need to
[59:01] be represented or have the right to be
represented.
[59:05] They have the right to
uh defend themselves. Uh they have the
[59:09] right to question witnesses. They have
the right to cross-examine witnesses.
[59:14] You have an impartial person there to
make decisions on evidentiary issues.
[59:21] It needs to be like a court hearing.
So,
[59:25] to do that,
um
[59:27] you've kind of got to lay out the ground
rules. And the way you do that is by
[59:32] codifying them. And so, my
recommendation is that it if you want to
[59:38] still move forward with this process as
a board
[59:43] to give me direction
to come up with
[59:47] a codified procedure which
will be open to public scrutiny and
[59:53] comment and your
blessing
[59:56] and have everybody, including Trustee
Mosley
[1:00:00] vote for or against it
and and put it in place.
[1:00:08] As simple as that. Yeah.
And then once it's in place, at that
[1:00:12] point, then we could move forward with
scheduling the actual hearing and we
[1:00:18] would have a roadmap for how it's going
to be conducted.
[1:00:23] Um
So, we don't have the specifics in front
[1:00:27] of us. We have in front that that
memorandum was basically an overview
[1:00:32] with with the pros and cons, if you
will. Yep.
[1:00:36] » And to get a get a uh a document with
specifics we need as a board to give you
[1:00:46] direction, which doesn't require a
motion, I believe, just direction to go
[1:00:51] » Correct. forward and furnish us with
that document. Right. The vote will be
[1:00:56] on the ordinance. Yeah. Yeah. So, um,
time wise,
[1:01:03] is that something that we could look
forward to in the next meeting or is it
[1:01:07] going to take longer than that or what's
your feeling on that? Um
[1:01:14] Well, I have resources at the firm, in
particular the person that helped me
[1:01:19] with this memo that probably has
availability. I don't know if he can get
[1:01:24] it done by next meeting, but certainly
by the meeting after that, I would
[1:01:28] think.
Yeah.
[1:01:31] Um and and one other thing I'd like to
speak to um
[1:01:35] uh Trustee Mosley reached out to me
um
[1:01:38] and asked about whether or not the
memorandum that I produced for you
[1:01:44] could become a public document and
I wanted to speak to that so that
[1:01:48] everybody's clear on that.
So, I had marked that that document was
[1:01:53] attorney-client privileged and
confidential and
[1:01:56] every document that I send you from me
will be marked that way
[1:02:00] because it's my job to preserve the
privilege for you. However,
[1:02:05] you as a board can waive that privilege.
So, if you so desire
[1:02:12] you hold the privilege, you can waive
it, you can make it a public document if
[1:02:16] you like.
And I believe that that would require a
[1:02:19] motion, is that correct?
>> Yes.
[1:02:24] But, I can't do that.
And the reason I put that on there is to
[1:02:29] emphasize and underscore to individual
trustees, don't disseminate this because
[1:02:35] it's a board decision to disseminate it.
Very good.
[1:02:39] Um it is my personal opinion that
let is more
[1:02:44] more rather than less like you suggested
that um it would be
[1:02:50] uh incumbent upon us to have something
in place
[1:02:54] uh in the event that we do move forward
with uh
[1:02:58] the issues with Trustee Mosley and or in
the event that there is some other
[1:03:04] unfortunate issue that we have to
address in the in the future. So, I'm a
[1:03:09] thumbs up on
moving forward.
[1:03:13] And we'll take
we'll take a a
[1:03:15] roll call
uh
[1:03:17] Can we
>> all Can we ask questions first? Sure.
[1:03:20] Okay. Thank you.
Can I ask you about select parts of
[1:03:25] this? Sure. Okay. I just didn't know if
I was free to do that. So, in this
[1:03:29] letter,
[1:03:32] and I mean I'm just asking for
clarification because I have no legal
[1:03:36] training, so I don't I just want to make
sure I understand this correctly. Is it
[1:03:40] true that there are two
CRSs that talk about removing trustees?
[1:03:45] It's the 31-4-307
and the 31-4-501,
[1:03:49] which would be the recall.
So, I believe there are two
[1:03:54] Yeah, that is
that's correct.
[1:03:57] » Okay. So, and you're advocating we go
with 31-4-307.
[1:04:02] Um I'm not advocating one way or the
other.
[1:04:05] » Um I'm just I That was the direction
from the board at the last meeting. And
[1:04:10] And that was the thing I was hoping we
could read read back that motion because
[1:04:14] I don't recall
the the motion as
[1:04:18] I thought it was let's have a hearing,
not let's have a hearing to determine
[1:04:22] removal,
because that's that's deeper in the
[1:04:26] CRSs.
So, I don't think that that was totally
[1:04:29] accurate that we
made a motion to remove.
[1:04:33] I think the Just a hearing. that was
discussed was the removal statute, and
[1:04:39] then based on that discussion
that referenced the removal statute, the
[1:04:43] the motion was approved.
Okay.
[1:04:48] I'll get back to that then. So, So, then
there are two statutes that
[1:04:52] remove a trustee. Mhm. So, um
I don't think that we've codified
[1:04:57] 31-4-501,
which is the recall.
[1:05:02] I looked in I looked and we hadn't
codified that.
[1:05:06] So, I'm just trying to understand why we
would codify one but not the other.
[1:05:11] You know, I Trustee Beeson, I haven't
looked into the procedure for recall,
[1:05:16] but my guess is that's a pretty
established procedure, so you're not
[1:05:20] guessing. Whereas with the removal
statute, there's no guidance.
[1:05:25] » Because I think you put in here it's
very
[1:05:28] it's not used very often at all. So,
okay.
[1:05:31] Um
that leads into my next question. I
[1:05:33] think you just answered it. Well, why
can't we just Why do we have to codify?
[1:05:37] Why can't we just rely on the CRS? But
you you put it how complex it is. So,
[1:05:41] thank you for So, okay. So, that answers
that one.
[1:05:45] So, do you know if
307
[1:05:49] which is the removal
versus 501, which is the recall
[1:05:54] in the recall in the 501
it allows trustees
[1:05:58] to censure
remove committee or liaison assignments,
[1:06:03] restrict staff contact, require
communication protocols, refer criminal
[1:06:08] conduct. That's in the
the 501. Do you know if the 307 allows
[1:06:14] for the same corrective actions?
Because then it would seem like Why why
[1:06:19] why do we need two if they do the same
thing?
[1:06:24] Um
I need to find the language and
[1:06:28] » And I can send this to Erica or to
Glennon I happen to have it open. Do
[1:06:33] you? I can read it out.
>> read it, please?
[1:06:36] So, this is from page 54 of 623 of the
Colorado Revised Statutes 2025, so
[1:06:42] hopefully I'm referencing the right one.
31-4-307 removal of officers, causes,
[1:06:48] notice. By a majority vote of all
members of the board of trustees, the
[1:06:51] mayor, the clerk, the treasurer, any
member of the board, or any other
[1:06:56] officer of the town may be removed from
office. No such removal shall be made
[1:07:02] without a charge in writing and an
opportunity of hearing being given
[1:07:06] unless the officer against whom the
charge is made has moved out of the
[1:07:10] limits of the town.
When any officer ceases to reside within
[1:07:14] the limits of the town, he may be
removed from removed from office
[1:07:18] pursuant to the section. A municipal
judge may be removed removed during his
[1:07:23] term of office only for cause
as set forth in section 13-10-105-2
[1:07:28] CRS.
And on the next page there's some source
[1:07:32] citations. Uh do you want me to read the
source citations? No, I think No, I
[1:07:36] think No, I think that um
confirms my suspicion without looking at
[1:07:42] it again.
Um it's either removal or no no removal
[1:07:46] under that statute.
>> Thank you. Um you know, at the last
[1:07:49] meeting what I did uh offer as options
was anything along a spectrum from do
[1:07:56] nothing to this removal statute. Okay.
And just for clarification of the 307
[1:08:02] that she just read, it's it's a it's
binary. It's either you're removed or
[1:08:06] you're not. So, I don't see how that's
fair if
[1:08:10] if the
[1:08:14] if the behavior lies in the middle where
a censure or
[1:08:21] restricting staff contact would would
serve the purpose. And I don't know I
[1:08:25] don't have the evidence, so I don't know
where it is. So, for us to say binary
[1:08:30] you stay or you go seems
I just I don't understand how why we
[1:08:35] would do that. Right. And and that's the
board decision. I mean Cuz I'd like the
[1:08:40] full spectrum. I'd like nothing to
removal, but it seems like it crosses
[1:08:44] 307
and 501. Right. Okay. So, at at at
[1:08:49] present
the decision that's been made is to
[1:08:52] proceed with 307.
But
[1:08:56] you're a board. Yeah, what if it You can
do
[1:09:06] » So, I guess my question is without
knowing the evidence of a given hearing,
[1:09:09] how do we know which CRS to use between
307 and 501?
[1:09:13] And I'm just asking for clarification
cuz I really don't I don't know.
[1:09:18] Well, I think the recall is is more of a
citizen
[1:09:21] » [clears throat]
>> initiative.
[1:09:22] » Correct.
And
[1:09:24] » But that gives us so much more latitude.
Well, so the recall is a citizen
[1:09:29] initiative and maybe the distinction
here is
[1:09:32] the the 307
remedy is a board remedy
[1:09:38] and the accusations right now involve
potential violations or harassment
[1:09:44] against town employees who you are
responsible to oversee and protect. And
[1:09:49] so, that's why that removal statute is
probably more applicable for this
[1:09:54] situation.
Great. Okay, thank you.
[1:09:59] Attorney Whitman Attorney, can I ask you
a question? Yes. So, I remember we got
[1:10:03] ready to take that vote and of course
things were a little bit in turmoil. You
[1:10:07] were brand new.
Um
[1:10:10] and I think I asked you a question, what
are the options? And you said you can do
[1:10:16] anything. You You didn't You didn't
provide any options.
[1:10:20] Um
I expected that you would have said
[1:10:24] nothing, letter of reprimand, censure,
removal, you know,
[1:10:29] you know, give us the the normal list
and you did not do that.
[1:10:32] So
>> I think I did. Well, I don't I Thank you
[1:10:36] and I would like to look at the video,
but I don't recall that.
[1:10:39] Maybe it's irrelevant. The The The point
is is that I don't think we all agreed
[1:10:45] that it was a vote for either removal or
nothing. I think that the vote really
[1:10:50] was for a hearing sort of undefined.
And
[1:10:56] at least that's my recollection.
And and I would be happy to go back and
[1:11:01] and get a transcript of the of the
BOT and see if that's correct or not
[1:11:06] correct if we captured everything, but
but I I do think that it's not just uh
[1:11:13] dismissal or nothing.
Now, what whether you agree with that or
[1:11:18] not, I would like some guidance on that.
Maybe we can talk about that the next
[1:11:21] meeting.
Well, I think if it's
[1:11:24] I I mean your 307, those are really the
two options at the conclusion of a
[1:11:29] hearing. Okay. It's either
yes or no.
[1:11:33] Okay. So, does a I'll go back and look
at the video and see if I get the same
[1:11:37] thing out of it. Thank you. So, does a
new ordinance
[1:11:40] uh of the town of Palmer Lake have to be
tied to a specific state statute or is
[1:11:46] do we have the latitude to
uh expand the consequences, for
[1:11:51] instance, and make it non-binary, if you
will?
[1:11:57] Um
[1:12:00] I think I'd have to know the specifics
of what you're thinking, Mr. Mayor. Like
[1:12:05] » Well, I'm thinking what's been stated
that, you know,
[1:12:08] it can be nothing
uh which you know, not removing is
[1:12:13] nothing
or it can be anything from censure to uh
[1:12:18] removal.
>> Yeah.
[1:12:19] Yeah, so a town code can be more
restrictive than a state statute.
[1:12:23] So, that could be part of your
um
[1:12:28] recommended
document to us.
[1:12:30] » Yes. And that would be like a a our
direction to you, right, to
[1:12:35] » Yes.
uh formulate something that would give
[1:12:38] us some options. Yes. Right. Yeah, I I
would like to just make a comment on
[1:12:42] that. Can I quote just one little half
of a sentence from your
[1:12:45] privileged document?
Um if it's okay with the board.
[1:12:52] Yeah, the the the sentence was was very
I think it was an excellent sentence. It
[1:12:56] said, "This procedure should be built in
a way that any trustee in the future
[1:13:02] would allow themselves to be subject to
it because it's fair." And I think I
[1:13:07] think that's the perfect sentence, but I
do think that that means it can't be
[1:13:11] just
one or zero. It has to have a range of
[1:13:16] outcomes. And I think that's entirely
possible. Okay. Okay.
[1:13:21] And then Mr. Mayor, I've got two more
quick ones if I could.
[1:13:25] Thank you. This This helps a lot.
Um on page two,
[1:13:32] this is just
um
[1:13:38] So, it says um and I think you alluded
to this
[1:13:42] the decision is by a majority vote of
all members of the Board of Trustees. Do
[1:13:46] we have to be all seven or a quorum? All
seven.
[1:13:49] » All seven. Okay. And Yeah, it's not good
enough to just have a quorum.
[1:13:52] » Thank you. Perfect. Okay.
And then on page
[1:13:56] eight,
um
[1:13:59] would the town be required to pay for
reasonable attorney fees
[1:14:03] for the trustee
in the future who has been accused of
[1:14:07] wrongdoing?
And you went into that quite lengthy and
[1:14:10] I appreciate that.
But I don't have a good feeling that
[1:14:13] It'd be my recommendation that they do.
That we do pay for an attorney. Okay,
[1:14:17] thank you.
And then my last question Well, I have
[1:14:19] two more.
On page 11, it says the power to
[1:14:22] subpoena witnesses.
Can you describe that? Who subpoenas
[1:14:27] the witnesses? So, it needs to be a
judicial-like proceeding.
[1:14:32] Um
I didn't land firmly on every single
[1:14:38] judicial-like uh procedure that I think
should go into an ordinance. Um I was
[1:14:43] kind of waiting to get direction from
the board whether they wanted me to
[1:14:47] really dive into this.
And if at that point I would come up
[1:14:52] with what I think,
you know, based on further research
[1:14:55] would be an appropriate laundry list of
available litigation
[1:15:03] devices that are available. Okay.
And my my final question is, the
[1:15:07] decision is subject to judicial review.
Is that you were talking about we would
[1:15:12] hire a hearing officer or is it a judge?
>> No, that means that
[1:15:18] definitely one part of the procedure
needs to be that the proceedings are
[1:15:22] transcribed or recorded in some respect
so that if
[1:15:27] either party doesn't like the outcome,
there's an ability to appeal. And the
[1:15:31] ability to appeal would probably be to a
regular court. Okay. And could a court
[1:15:36] confirm or overturn?
Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
[1:15:41] Mayor. Sure.
[1:15:45] Any other questions for Mr. Whitmer
before we take our
[1:15:50] our poll?
[1:15:54] Dennis, I would just like to say I would
have no objections to opening up the
[1:15:58] JVAM
memoranda.
[1:16:01] Maybe one caution is that is it half of
it is sort of about the process and the
[1:16:05] 307 stuff.
And the last four pages are specifically
[1:16:10] about me, which is is fine with me. But
the the problem is is that we can't
[1:16:15] write a code for a specific case. The
code needs to be written for a general
[1:16:19] case. And so, if we do open it up, I
would not want anybody to be confused
[1:16:25] that we either agree or disagree with
all of those points.
[1:16:29] But I'd be perfectly happy with it to be
open.
[1:16:32] Okay. Well, let's address
um
[1:16:35] the question on the table first and then
we'll address the question on
[1:16:40] uh publishing the memorandum second.
So, the question on the table is if we
[1:16:45] wanted to direct Mr. Whitmer to provide
us with
[1:16:52] a document that
details the
[1:16:57] proposed ordinance.
I think
[1:17:00] there should be public comment before
taking a vote.
[1:17:04] We're not taking a vote. We're giving
We're giving direction. So, we're not
[1:17:08] taking a vote.
[1:17:11] The only question I have is
that is are we going to be able to
[1:17:14] provide some feedback to the town
attorney on Absolutely.
[1:17:20] before you finalize the document.
Absolutely.
[1:17:24] Yeah, I would
um
[1:17:26] Mr. Mayor, you said, "Well, how long's
this process going to take?"
[1:17:30] Um
realistically, it's going to take months
[1:17:33] because there's going to be a draft.
You folks will review it.
[1:17:38] We'll talk about it at a meeting, maybe
two meetings. You'll give me comments
[1:17:42] back.
It'll be revised.
[1:17:45] It'll take several meetings to get to a
point where you're comfortable.
[1:17:48] Understood. Yeah.
So, Mr. Mayor, are you talking about
[1:17:53] giving direction um with the baseline
such that the full spectrum of actions
[1:18:00] are available to us? Yes. Okay, thank
you.
[1:18:04] And your
I'm sorry.
[1:18:07] The other question I had was this
pertains to trustees only.
[1:18:12] In my In my thoughts or my opinion, this
could apply to appointed officials as
[1:18:17] well. The same process. So, the
the statute
[1:18:22] um
applies to
[1:18:25] which I think the code
I mean, it will also be applicable to
[1:18:29] um
the removal of the mayor, the clerk, the
[1:18:33] treasurer, any member of the board, or
any other officer of the town.
[1:18:37] So, it'll apply to all those folks.
Yeah.
[1:18:41] I just noticed that you said trustee.
That's that's why I asked. Oh, well.
[1:18:47] Yeah.
That wasn't the intent.
[1:18:54] So, before we
give direction, [clears throat] do we
[1:18:56] want to give some guidance also on the
specific things we would like to see as
[1:19:01] the
the
[1:19:03] um
you know, options for
[1:19:06] uh
[1:19:09] you know, options for um I don't know if
you I hate to use the word punishment,
[1:19:12] but
uh actions that the board could take in
[1:19:15] the event a
uh
[1:19:18] you know, a trustee is is found in a
found to guilty of a
[1:19:23] um
in a in that hearing or in a hearing. Do
[1:19:27] we want to provide him a list of options
that we would like to add to our
[1:19:32] ordinance?
So, he can draft those. I think that
[1:19:35] that's perfectly fine.
So, I think uh I think one of the
[1:19:40] options of course was nothing, right?
Which is already in the state statute.
[1:19:44] Then uh I think a letter of reprimand
seems reasonable.
[1:19:48] Uh and then censure.
The other thing I would like to see Can
[1:19:52] you um
excuse me for interrupting, but when you
[1:19:56] say censure, exactly what does that do?
>> It's a formal
[1:20:02] at least verbal uh warning, if you will,
to the trustee
[1:20:06] that
you know, they
[1:20:09] don't do that again.
>> [laughter]
[1:20:10] » So.
I mean, it's it's kind of it's
[1:20:13] relatively light, but it's it's an
option, right? So.
[1:20:17] Uh we're try I mean, I think I think
what I'm hearing is people are trying to
[1:20:19] give ourselves We're trying to give
ourselves more options rather than
[1:20:22] fewer, right? Understood.
The other thing I would like to see is
[1:20:26] um let's say
we issue do something, like some form of
[1:20:31] reprimand or whatever the thing is the
board decides.
[1:20:35] Uh and then
what happens if it happens like there's
[1:20:38] a repeat offense? Like what then? Like
in in increasing like is there an
[1:20:42] automatic trigger to ever increasing
uh punishment or you know, something
[1:20:47] like that?
Um and then of course removal is an
[1:20:50] option. What are other folks' thoughts?
[1:20:54] Well, in in 501 it it lists it pretty
clearly censure, remove from committees,
[1:20:59] restrict staff contact, require
communication protocols. I think if we
[1:21:03] stay in line with 314501
and then add to that, maybe that's a
[1:21:08] good baseline.
I would agree.
[1:21:13] Yeah, that would make it less uh
less complicated. We could
[1:21:19] reuse that.
I do I still would like to see some sort
[1:21:22] of like
trigger like progressive
[1:21:25] you know,
uh
[1:21:29] I don't know how to phrase it. Like some
sort of progressive punishment or
[1:21:32] progressive progression of uh
You can't really do a trigger unless you
[1:21:36] know
>> Sorry. you know what the allegations or
[1:21:38] the charges are. What? I can't hear you.
What I'm saying is you can't really
[1:21:43] trigger something unless you know what
the offense is.
[1:21:45] » Well, Yeah, but if you find somebody
guilty of something
[1:21:49] Yeah.
It's not tailored toward any specific
[1:21:52] » we're giving the attorney direction and
he'll have to be the one to come up with
[1:21:57] the wording and the appropriate
>> ness of that particular device. So, I
[1:22:04] think we don't need to get too far into
the weeds in this at the moment. We'll
[1:22:08] have the opportunity We'll have the
opportunity to parse everything that he
[1:22:13] brings back to us.
[1:22:17] Did you have something to say, Tony? No,
sir. Okay.
[1:22:20] Um we have
other comment.
[1:22:28] Can we read the
>> read
[1:22:29] » Thanks, Dennis. Sorry.
[1:22:36] » The Board of Trustees values public
comment on issues relevant to town
[1:22:40] government. To permit the fair and
orderly expression of such comments, the
[1:22:44] Board will adhere to the following rules
for public comment. Whether for an
[1:22:48] agenda item or during public comment for
non-agenda items brought by the public.
[1:22:53] A speaker must be recognized by the
mayor to step to the podium, sign in,
[1:22:57] use the microphone,
state name and um
[1:23:02] place of residence for the record, and
address comments solely to the Board as
[1:23:07] a whole.
Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes,
[1:23:10] cannot pool time with another,
and each speaker may
[1:23:14] only speak once per topic. Civility and
respect is required. Comments should not
[1:23:18] be directed to town staff, individual
Board members, or to public members.
[1:23:22] Comments or disruption for from audience
members not recognized by the mayor are
[1:23:27] prohibited. Points already made should
not be duplicated. Only written comments
[1:23:31] limited to one page will be permitted.
Public members are also invited to
[1:23:36] submit comments by email to be
distributed to the Board separately.
[1:23:39] Note that comments submitted to the
Board are public record, and please
[1:23:43] understand that the Board will listen
and consider public comments. However,
[1:23:47] members are not required to discuss or
take action on your comment, but may
[1:23:52] refer it to staff or a future and/or a
future meeting for discussion.
[1:23:58] Amy Hudson, Palmer Lake resident. Couple
uh co- questions. Um if this is going to
[1:24:03] take several months, how much money is
that going to be? Is that going to be
[1:24:07] more than the 25,000, 30,000 that a
recall takes?
[1:24:12] And um
hiring a special judicial person, that's
[1:24:18] going to cost money.
Each
[1:24:21] the defendant, if we're providing the
defendant a lawyer, how much is that
[1:24:26] going to cost? And then in the meantime,
depending on your scale of of censure or
[1:24:31] whatever, how do you make your uh
employees feel safe
[1:24:36] in the meantime?
Thank you. Good questions, and Mr.
[1:24:39] Whitmer, can you Do you have any way to
address the money issues that she
[1:24:44] raised?
[1:24:49] Uh I don't know if I can quantify it off
the cuff, Mr. Mayor. Um
[1:24:55] I have done a lot of litigation over the
years, and it's very expensive. So
[1:25:00] I I mean, I know that's not helpful.
Um but it it will be I mean, I can give
[1:25:05] it some thought and give you a
guestimate on a range at the next
[1:25:09] meeting, but I don't have a number for
you right now. I believe that's the best
[1:25:14] we can uh expect. So thank you, and and
I'll look forward to hearing that next
[1:25:19] meeting. Or may I make a comment? Sure.
So the specifics
[1:25:23] are not about
We don't know the allegations. I think I
[1:25:27] thought what we're doing here was making
a code for all future
[1:25:32] aberrations of behavior.
>> though, that
[1:25:36] um
that
[1:25:38] this will um
very likely apply to the current
[1:25:42] allegations. So
um
[1:25:46] I think that this is relevant
information. And yes, sir. However,
[1:25:52] our attorney's opinion on page four
indicates that this ordinance that we're
[1:25:56] talking about should be based not on any
particular removal proceeding. We can't
[1:26:01] talk about any Understood. I I So Do we
want a policy or not?
[1:26:08] Well, I do,
but I would also be interested to know
[1:26:13] what kind of money it's going to cost.
[1:26:18] Okay, but but bringing it into context
of a recall is not germane to this
[1:26:22] discussion.
Because we're not talking about a recall
[1:26:26] right now. We're talking about
So
[1:26:29] So it's apples and oranges. Do we want
to have
[1:26:32] Do we want to codify this?
Then we have to incur the expense at one
[1:26:36] time because it's for future.
And if we're worried about recall, that
[1:26:40] that's not germane. I'm sorry.
[1:26:45] Well, to say that we're worried about
it, I think is is um
[1:26:51] is not necessarily the right term, but
you know, obviously we have a citizen
[1:26:54] that's concerned about it. And I respect
that very much and we need to protect
[1:26:58] town staff. However, in the future, what
if an aberration
[1:27:02] by one of us doesn't raise to level of
recall. It's you know, we can't look at
[1:27:08] every eventuality, but we can do a
blanket
[1:27:11] code. And that's That's what I thought
we were doing here. Well, we are doing
[1:27:15] that. So,
um
[1:27:18] So
how would you like us to proceed?
[1:27:22] » I think we're I think we should proceed
as exactly what we're doing.
[1:27:26] And yeah, it's going to cost money if we
want to do this, but I think it's money
[1:27:30] well spent for the future. That's all. I
just I I just think that it goes against
[1:27:35] » been nothing said that depending on the
cost of the money that we won't do it.
[1:27:39] But the the But
But the reference to a recall is
[1:27:43] specific to Roger Mosley. Yeah, but
Mike, just separate the two things.
[1:27:48] That's what I'm trying to do.
>> Attorney Whitner said that we would do
[1:27:51] the code or he was going to do the code.
Give us a
[1:27:54] And that's some nominal cost.
It's the judicial proceeding against me
[1:27:59] that costs the ton of money, okay? And
we're not approving that right now. That
[1:28:04] we're setting that aside sort of until
we get this document and adopt
[1:28:08] [clears throat] it. And so when we get
that, we can make a better decision. I
[1:28:12] don't think we have to compare
dollars and dollars tonight. Okay?
[1:28:17] And I and I appreciate the attorney's
input on that. I think he's absolutely
[1:28:21] right. And having a code is useful even
if it's never used. At least you've got
[1:28:28] something to fill a hole that obviously
we have.
[1:28:36] My turn?
Yes, ma'am. Trina Shook.
[1:28:45] Good evening.
I want to focus
[1:28:47] » State your
uh name and address again, please.
[1:28:51] Trina Shook. I don't feel comfortable
stating my address for the record.
[1:28:56] I'm a Tri Lakes resident.
Um
[1:29:00] So, good evening. Um I want to focus on
one question.
[1:29:04] What is the standard being applied here?
The allegations against Trustee Roger
[1:29:11] Mosley describe
a raised voice.
[1:29:16] Okay, so this is not uh
open for discussion. We're not talking
[1:29:22] about the specific allegations to Roger
Mosley. We're talking about creating an
[1:29:28] ordinance for removal of any officer or
trustee, not him specifically. I have
[1:29:35] the right to make a comment on whether
or not
[1:29:39] we
>> this hold a hearing
[1:29:42] » this comment at the end of the meeting.
You can make the comment at the end of
[1:29:46] the meeting. This comment period is
specific to this business item, not
[1:29:51] public comment in general. It's specific
to this business item. This has to do
[1:29:57] with
Roger Mosley specifically.
[1:30:01] » Yeah, yes, it does. Your comment does.
But, this discussion is about the code
[1:30:08] that creates the process.
>> Well, my comment is before you vote on
[1:30:13] whether or not
to do a
[1:30:16] trial on Mr. Mosley, I would like to
speak.
[1:30:19] » that.
There is no vote for that right now or
[1:30:23] tonight.
Thank you.
[1:30:46] Good evening. I'm Katherine Gale, chief
legal counsel for integrity matters.
[1:30:51] And Mr. Mayor, you did bring up that
this code would be applied to Mr.
[1:30:55] Mosley, so therefore the previous
comment was valid based on the door that
[1:30:59] you opened. I've made I brought up the
fact that it would possibly be
[1:31:04] applied to Mr. Mosley because there are
legal questions that were raised by
[1:31:10] um
Trustee Yurka, and but I also made very
[1:31:16] clear that this is about any trustee and
any officer in the future, not just
[1:31:23] specifically about Trustee Mosley. And
the discussion right now is about this
[1:31:28] ordinance, not about Trustees Mosley's
allegations and possible hearing in the
[1:31:34] future. I understand that.
>> Thank you.
[1:31:37] » I also find it fascinating that when I
said that we should have public comment,
[1:31:41] you said no, and the next thing former
Trustee Hudson got up and made a
[1:31:44] comment.
>> What I said no to was that we were going
[1:31:46] to have a vote. We were just getting a
consensus for direction.
[1:31:50] Okay.
There are legal defects requiring the
[1:31:53] termination of the current removal
process, and also the ordinance that you
[1:31:58] propose to draft. Under
CRS 31-43-07,
[1:32:04] it only governs removal. This is a
statutory town. This is not a home rule
[1:32:09] town. You cannot change the parameters
of 307. My suggestion would be
[1:32:16] a code of ethics
with a continuum
[1:32:20] of censure, apology, whatever, and then
at the end of that say, "And should
[1:32:24] these things fail,
we will resort to state law 307."
[1:32:29] However,
[1:32:32] » [clears throat]
>> the governing statute requires a charge
[1:32:35] in writing
and an opportunity for a hearing.
[1:32:39] We have not seen publicly a charge in
writing,
[1:32:42] nor is there a hearing.
The materials provided consist of
[1:32:45] generalized summaries and conclusions,
not specific factual allegations
[1:32:49] supported by evidence.
Without disclosure of the underlying
[1:32:53] facts, no meaningful hearing can occur.
This is a quasi-judicial proceeding
[1:32:59] implicating constitutional protections
under Article 2 of the Colorado
[1:33:03] Constitution, including due process.
As [clears throat] recognized in the
[1:33:07] town's own legal analysis, additional
procedural safeguards must be codified
[1:33:12] prior to proceeding,
and the statute alone is insufficient to
[1:33:16] ensure constitutional compliance. Those
safeguards do not currently exist. There
[1:33:21] are also serious concerns regarding the
authority under which this process was
[1:33:24] initiated. Municipal powers must be
exercised in accordance with statutory
[1:33:29] authority under Title 31. The engagement
of outside entities, including
[1:33:33] employer's counsel, appears to have
occurred without clear authorization
[1:33:37] from the board or a codified municipal
municipal authority, which to this date
[1:33:42] doesn't exist. Actions taken without
lawful authority cannot form the basis
[1:33:47] of a valid proceeding.
The integrity of the investigative
[1:33:50] process is also in question. Efforts
were made to provide relevant
[1:33:53] information to the investigation and to
request clarification regarding its
[1:33:57] statutory basis. The efforts were
acknowledged but not followed,
[1:34:02] raising concerns about completeness and
neutrality. These issues have been
[1:34:06] previously brought up by Integrity
Matters to the board April 1st and April
[1:34:10] 14th, placing these concerns before the
board prior to this proceeding. Taken
[1:34:14] together, lack of specific charges,
absence of codified procedures,
[1:34:19] questions regarding statutory authority,
and an incomplete investigative process
[1:34:23] are fundamental defects in this process.
The only lawful course is to terminate
[1:34:29] the current removal process.
You cannot make a law and then
[1:34:32] retroactively apply it.
And move forward once
[1:34:38] the ordinance is codified for the town
of Palmer Lake.
[1:34:40] You've all sworn an oath
to the Constitution of Colorado and to
[1:34:45] the United States.
It's important to be in compliance. Due
[1:34:49] process matters. Thank you.
>> [applause]
[1:34:55] » THANK YOU.
[1:35:05] SEEING NO OTHER
[1:35:08] I AM CARA MCVAY, Tri-Lakes resident.
Have one question.
[1:35:12] Um
does this process apply to only the
[1:35:16] trustees or does it apply to um
other town staff that have
[1:35:24] been involved?
>> we just answered that question a minute
[1:35:26] ago uh per uh Trustee
Yurkus's uh question, it applies to
[1:35:33] trustees, the mayor, and any town
um
[1:35:38] officers, which would include um
the attorney, the administrator, and the
[1:35:46] clerk. And the judge. And the judge. And
the And the judge? And the treasurer,
[1:35:51] but no
town employees. Okay, so not the same
[1:35:56] thing.
>> animal. Okay.
[1:36:00] Karen, if you're asking a question like
the
[1:36:02] uh chairman of the planning commission
as an as an example, no, they have
[1:36:06] protections other where other places in
the code. Okay. Thank you.
[1:36:26] Hello, Kathy Keeler, 605 Academy Road. I
just wanted to bring forth um on Beth's
[1:36:31] suggestion
of having progressive steps of
[1:36:35] consequences,
I think with
[1:36:38] the nature of the units we have working
together here,
[1:36:43] that the more defined you make these
consequences
[1:36:47] and stipulations, the better off we're
all going to be, so it can't be looked
[1:36:52] at as being subjective. If this person
does this, they get a a censure. If this
[1:36:57] person does it, they get something else.
So, I think it has to be
[1:37:02] very defined and have very
drawn out or not doesn't have to be
[1:37:07] drawn out, but very defined steps of
progression.
[1:37:12] Thank you.
[1:37:27] Seeing no other public comment, um
does the board have any further
[1:37:32] questions?
>> [snorts]
[1:37:34] » I wonder if the attorney can give an
opinion based upon the uh
[1:37:39] comment from the attorney from Integrity
Matters.
[1:37:44] Uh
probably not at this time, Trustee
[1:37:47] Harris. That That was a lot to unpack.
Um but if it's the board's Well, the
[1:37:52] board has already given uh Mr. Whitmer
uh direction to follow up on the
[1:38:01] legal issues that were raised by Trustee
Yurka. So, I don't know that there's
[1:38:07] um any question here.
Uh Trustee Yurka, were the issues that
[1:38:12] you raised the same as the ones that uh
the attorney just brought up? Yeah, I
[1:38:16] think most of them are. They might have
some additional ones.
[1:38:20] But
I I know they've sent to all the board
[1:38:23] members
uh an email outlining their concerns.
[1:38:28] But I think the attorney probably should
have.
[1:38:32] I believe that he is in in possession of
those emails.
[1:38:37] I am. Um I guess
to be clear, is that the direction of
[1:38:40] the board that simultaneously with the
creation of
[1:38:45] this new code section to handle
procedure and hearing, you want me to
[1:38:50] look into the issues raised by
uh the speaker and Trustee Yurka? I was
[1:38:56] under the impression that we had already
given you that direction, but if not
[1:39:00] » Okay.
Yeah, I thought I thought we had cuz
[1:39:05] There's separate There's two separate
issues. Right.
[1:39:08] » Okay. Right, that's true. wanted to be
clear. The main concern I have is that
[1:39:12] all the things that you brought up and
all the things that she brought up are
[1:39:15] all addressed. Oh. So, I don't know if
there's like any
[1:39:19] Yeah, I don't know. I don't disagree. I
I just kind of read the code and the
[1:39:23] ordinances and whatnot and I Okay. do my
best guess and that's why I say in my
[1:39:27] opinion. Okay.
All right, then. Okay. I'm fine. I
[1:39:32] understand the direction. Thank you.
Can I make sure I understand it?
[1:39:36] We have two things.
Go write the code. That's one thing.
[1:39:41] The second thing is go investigate
whether the hearing that was voted on on
[1:39:47] me if was legally done
and should require more uh uh motions
[1:39:53] and votes or not and and how that will
proceed after we get the code. Is that
[1:39:58] correct?
[1:40:05] Yes, I understand that to be the
direction.
[1:40:13] Uh therefore,
um
[1:40:16] just to clarify, we are giving him
direction to give us a document with all
[1:40:22] the details of a proposed ordinance in
regards to the process
[1:40:27] of
uh
[1:40:29] uh hearing of whether it's the
uh member of the Board of Trustees or uh
[1:40:35] any town officer. Right.
Correct. Yep, that's the first thing.
[1:40:39] All right. Yep.
Mr. Mayor,
[1:40:41] can I add something? Yes.
[1:40:45] While I understand and everybody
understands the need to move very
[1:40:48] cautiously,
I would also
[1:40:52] request
that the board, while moving cautiously,
[1:40:55] move swiftly.
Okay, this has been ongoing for a while.
[1:41:01] Well, I understand, but there
Excuse me, there is no public comment at
[1:41:07] this point. But there are staff involved
with the issue as well as trustees.
[1:41:13] So, I would ask you to consider the fact
that drawing this out for an extensive
[1:41:17] amount of time
incurs cost and it also incurs stress on
[1:41:21] town employees. And that's all I'm going
to say about that. And the other Well,
[1:41:25] the other thing I will say is that this
board has a a town attorney.
[1:41:29] So,
[1:41:32] we have a town attorney now.
So, those
[1:41:35] folks that come to the podium who are
attorneys are not representative of the
[1:41:40] board. And we should pay attention to
our town attorney and leave them to
[1:41:44] integrity matters as that's what they
want to do.
[1:42:08] I
believe that all of the board agrees
[1:42:11] with you that we don't need to drag our
feet.
[1:42:14] Um unfortunately
uh we are somewhat at the mercy of
[1:42:20] how things
move in the legal world.
[1:42:25] And so
um
[1:42:28] and perhaps there is the possibility of
a special meeting once we get the
[1:42:32] ordinance draft [snorts] or however it
might work. So, we can address that uh
[1:42:37] once we see the draft and or you know,
are informed that the draft is available
[1:42:43] to us. And um
but again, that takes board consensus in
[1:42:49] terms of scheduling etc.
Yes.
[1:43:05] Yeah,
I don't know that it was an attack other
[1:43:08] than just an opinion. So,
Mr. Mayor, Board of Trustees
[1:43:15] Mr. Mayor, Board of Trustees
Um if I could just ask a question uh
[1:43:21] pertaining to the document. I believe
that Trustee Mosley I think that and I
[1:43:27] could be completely wrong. Last meeting
Trustee Mosley handed me a document and
[1:43:31] said the board was emailed this document
that you wanted in the public record. Is
[1:43:36] that the same document that you were
having
[1:43:38] uh
Kent
[1:43:41] that that you guys are discussing for
Kent to review and respond to?
[1:43:45] Is was it dealing with personnel?
Well, I
[1:43:50] No, I don't believe that that's what
we're talking about.
[1:43:54] I don't think so. Cuz that's the only
document I've received from Integrity
[1:43:57] Matters since the last
Oh, I I know what you're talking about.
[1:44:01] The one that we thought was not entered
into the record previously.
[1:44:04] » It wasn't entered into the record.
>> Yeah, that's that's what Kat was talking
[1:44:08] about was the April 1st and April 14th
emails that we all received and I think
[1:44:13] that I handed to you to enter in the
record. Yeah.
[1:44:17] So, procedure won't allow me to I mean
that that's not something to enter into
[1:44:20] the record cuz we did not discuss it at
the meetings. Right? But obviously she
[1:44:24] has emailed you guys all individually.
Right. Um I would like Kent to give
[1:44:29] advice on how what is the appropriate
way for trustees to receive information
[1:44:37] uh pertaining to personnel or personnel
complaints to ensure that we are
[1:44:41] handling it correctly from the
employment standpoint and then the
[1:44:45] trustees standpoint moving forward
because if it becomes a public record,
[1:44:50] there's several things in there that are
that are personnel and I'm not HR and
[1:44:55] I'm not in that area, but I'm not quite
confident on how I
[1:45:00] handle that. Maybe
Erica, just wait just a second.
[1:45:03] » Before we entertain it.
>> That's another item.
[1:45:06] We've already approved the document. Is
that correct? I believe that we've given
[1:45:10] attorney Whitmer So, I don't have that
document. Excuse me. And number two,
[1:45:16] we've approved
him looking into legitimacy of the vote
[1:45:20] we took in the hearing on me per
um
[1:45:24] trustee Erica's Correct. Correct. Yes.
The number three is I had made an
[1:45:30] opinion that I didn't mind having the
privilege document made public.
[1:45:37] » And we haven't decided on that.
>> Right. That's the third thing. And then
[1:45:39] the fourth thing is what Erica is
talking about. They're all different
[1:45:42] items. Yeah, so if I'm hearing it
correctly and is you handed me a
[1:45:47] document last meeting
that had concerns pertaining to
[1:45:51] personnel.
Is that accurate? Okay. It sounds like
[1:45:56] the rest of the board, whether they have
received that document altogether or
[1:46:00] individually, have received that
document. That's my understanding, yes.
[1:46:05] You are now discussing that document in
a public forum
[1:46:09] pertaining to personnel or giving
direction to the attorney
[1:46:14] to investigate that. Is that the proper
protocol when we I don't know that we've
[1:46:18] been discussing that. I don't think so.
I think Well, that's what Kat
[1:46:21] Erica raises a good question. How do we
get that document into the record?
[1:46:26] That's all. That's what the question is.
And how do we appropriately accept a
[1:46:29] document because there's certain things
That's a fair question. Yep. Is it And
[1:46:33] what's that process when it's on a topic
that
[1:46:38] I mean, if I thought that was a
reasonable document and I got up to the
[1:46:41] podium and I read it or said, "Hey,
here's the document. The title is,
[1:46:45] please put it in public record." Would
that be sufficient or do I have to go
[1:46:48] through the whole document in order to
get it entered?
[1:46:56] It wasn't an item at the Like, I can't
just take a document and put it in the
[1:46:59] record.
Yeah, I I agree.
[1:47:02] » Yep.
[1:47:11] I think that if um
it's presented in a public meeting
[1:47:16] and offered to the board
uh to become a part of the record
[1:47:21] the board can choose to accept it and
place it at the public record.
[1:47:33] I'd like to make a comment I
I've been It has
[1:47:36] been alluding to. I've gotten
emails from citizens and
[1:47:41] concerning allegations and complaints
about town staff.
[1:47:46] And I was going to bring it up in doing
board reports to
[1:47:50] set aside an agenda item to discuss how
do we handle these?
[1:47:54] Mhm.
And we just kind of urge them to wait to
[1:47:58] Please.
You know, I get it, but you know, I'm
[1:48:00] not the appropriate person to act on it.
And I know some of the other board
[1:48:05] members have gotten them as well. So,
the question is what do we do with that?
[1:48:10] Yeah.
I don't believe it's in our purview to
[1:48:13] be discussing town employees and and uh
Yeah. And uh
[1:48:19] Well, it's not always town employees. It
could be town officers. Well, we have to
[1:48:24] separate the two. We can't We can't
include the town employees in any of our
[1:48:28] discussions, in my opinion.
>> been
[1:48:30] primarily against town officers. If the
document involves town employees
[1:48:36] and
then I think it needs to go to the town
[1:48:39] administrator first.
>> and I do that, but if it's a town
[1:48:42] officer, I've held held on to it until I
had a chance to bring it up in
[1:48:46] discussion tonight.
>> And if what I said previously
[1:48:50] you interpret it as meaning complaints
against uh town employees,
[1:48:55] that's not my intent. I I thought the
complaints would be
[1:48:59] what we're talking about is complaints
against town officials. Right. Yeah.
[1:49:04] Personnel is a different matter. Yeah,
not not personnel. I
[1:49:08] cuz I tell town administrator it's his
responsibility.
[1:49:16] Well, the third um
before we address number four of Mr.
[1:49:21] Mosley's list, the third was whether to
um
[1:49:26] cuz we've addressed one and two.
The third was whether to make the
[1:49:30] confidential memorandum in regards to uh
his summary of the codification of the
[1:49:37] process procedure
for a hearing
[1:49:41] whether to make that public or not.
Is there any discussion?
[1:49:46] Mr. Mayor,
I don't believe that we should release
[1:49:49] page nine because it identifies
a possible
[1:49:54] accuser and I don't think that's right
to put them in the public.
[1:49:59] So, page nine at the bottom. Okay.
I don't believe we should release that.
[1:50:04] For this
the town's staff's protection.
[1:50:09] Understood. Thank you.
Mike, I think it's a good point.
[1:50:14] I wouldn't want to shred the document. I
don't think it's that important anymore
[1:50:17] because we've now separated
my case from the
[1:50:22] the
code stuff and you're going to go off
[1:50:27] and do that and so we probably don't
even need to refer to that privileged
[1:50:31] document now because it's a
it's it's multi
[1:50:35] faceted. It's not just on the code, so.
I would agree with you. Yeah, probably
[1:50:40] okay not to release it. All right.
Any other discussion?
[1:50:46] I said I agree with him that it's not
that it doesn't need to be released.
[1:50:57] I guess at what point do you
whatever you ordinance working on
[1:51:02] working on be released to the public
prior to it being official ordinance for
[1:51:07] hearing?
So, there's a procedure for adoption of
[1:51:10] ordinances and they need to be
published.
[1:51:14] Okay, and everything that But that's the
final product. Everything that he's
[1:51:17] going to suggest has been covered in
general in this memorandum. So, it will
[1:51:23] be made public
and effect at that point in time. I'm
[1:51:27] just wondering about are you going to
are they public going to have
[1:51:31] opportunity comment on the proposed
final product of the ordinance or not?
[1:51:38] Is is my question. Yes, prior to
adoption it'll be part of the agenda and
[1:51:44] packet. Okay. Yeah, I think it has to be
made available to the public for 30 days
[1:51:48] anyway.
Well, that's I think So, like I think 30
[1:51:52] days after we approve it and then
No. No, it's like 30 days before we can
[1:51:56] approve it, right?
[1:51:59] After. Oh, my bad.
Okay. So, I mean I think you have a good
[1:52:03] question, which is, you know, how much
time will we have to review it? You like
[1:52:07] the drafts and I mean we can always if
you if we get a draft and the board
[1:52:12] says, "Oh,
this isn't quite what we want." And you
[1:52:15] can always tweak it and then send it
back for revision and until we get what
[1:52:19] we want. That's that's the public. I
don't think that the public is
[1:52:23] pretty interested in this. Yeah.
I don't disagree with you. So, is your
[1:52:28] question then
does the public have
[1:52:32] opportunity to remark on the draft?
before it becomes
[1:52:36] final. So, your question is does the
opportunity does the public have an
[1:52:39] opportunity to remark on the draft? Yes.
Okay.
[1:52:43] And we just told by the attorney that
yes, they do.
[1:52:47] Yes. Is that correct? Yes.
So, could we can we redact
[1:52:52] the references to the
the alleged There won't be any
[1:52:55] references in there
If So, we're not going to for the
[1:52:59] ordinance. Okay. And we're not going to
release this. No. Okay.
[1:53:07] So, that's number three.
>> Three and uh uh
[1:53:11] And then number four in regards to the
email or memo or document about
[1:53:16] personnel, I
I don't believe that if it has to do
[1:53:20] with personnel, that it should be
>> I I've got a few but I I passed them on
[1:53:24] to
uh Mr. Blunt. We're concerned about town
[1:53:27] officials. Okay. Uh and I wanted to
bring it up at the board reports that we
[1:53:32] need to have a discussion on how to
handle those.
[1:53:35] Which I think is kind of a moot point
because
[1:53:38] this ordinance will cover that.
Correct.
[1:53:42] » Okay.
So, if it's a moot point, then we can
[1:53:45] move on.
[1:53:48] Correct?
Correct.
[1:53:52] Business item
um
[1:53:54] number six.
>> Just staff direction. No. Okay.
[1:53:59] Business item number six, ordinance
number 02-2026
[1:54:04] prohibiting use of graywater and
installation of graywater systems.
[1:54:09] Um
do we need to
[1:54:13] uh give any background in regards to
this or is it is the floor belong to
[1:54:18] Chaz?
All right. And Chaz can come up. You can
[1:54:22] either come up to the podium, Chaz, or
over whatever is easiest.
[1:54:31] And I just want to before Chaz gets
going, um
[1:54:36] Chaz is going to speak on on graywater
and he has another item that he just
[1:54:40] wants to speak on that that is related
to water as well. Okay.
[1:54:44] » If the board would allow. Um and he'll
get to that at the end. I don't have
[1:54:48] much in the in the way of graywater
outside of what I covered in the last
[1:54:53] meeting.
Would you like me to go over that again
[1:54:56] or Yeah, Chaz, I have I have I'm sorry,
go ahead. Briefly, I think so. Yeah,
[1:55:00] just one comment. In the paragraph that
ends with is prohibited, you know, where
[1:55:05] it says
new construction blah blah blah is
[1:55:08] prohibited. It's not real clear that a
new residence on a well would be able to
[1:55:14] do gray water. I mean, that implies it,
but I don't think so. I don't think it's
[1:55:18] stated
as clearly as
[1:55:22] » I mean, I got the gist cuz I know what
you're talking about, but I I just would
[1:55:25] like to have that slightly better to say
that if that new house is on a well,
[1:55:30] then they you can opt in to the gray
water system.
[1:55:34] Okay. Um I don't think I have the right
um
[1:55:38] paper here
or the right memo.
[1:55:41] But I thought we put in a uh
wording
[1:55:45] uh that was very specific to Palmer Lake
water, public water systems was. It's
[1:55:49] just that the the wording is sort of
like a double negative, and so I would
[1:55:53] like it to be more clear. I'll get you
the later.
[1:55:55] » Okay. Okay. But with that one caveat,
you you did good. Okay.
[1:56:05] Trustee Mosley, I I helped with this. I
I drafted this ordinance, and so we
[1:56:12] uh
tweaked it so that a person on a well
[1:56:16] would not be encumbered by this
ordinance.
[1:56:18] » Right.
And the language that I put in there was
[1:56:22] that uh
basically um it pertains to
[1:56:27] uh any system that has the potential for
intermingling with the public water
[1:56:31] system, and a well can't intermingle
with a public water system.
[1:56:35] » Right. And that's as soon as it ends
with is prohibited, right? Right. Yeah.
[1:56:39] Yeah, the the previous part of that
I would like it to say, but if you're on
[1:56:44] a well, just clearly, if you're on a
well, this doesn't apply. That's all.
[1:56:49] » [snorts]
[1:56:57] » No question? I've got nothing further as
far as gray water is concerned.
[1:57:02] Okay, so this is going to require a
vote.
[1:57:05] So, let me read this proposed ordinance.
[1:57:12] You may.
[1:57:21] Matt Steffin Circle Drive.
Um
[1:57:31] The way that most of the permits for
wells in the town are written,
[1:57:37] um
if the town expands its water district
[1:57:40] to within a certain distance of an
existing well, they are required to cap
[1:57:45] their well and join
the water district of the town.
[1:57:51] So, how do we address somebody who is on
a gray water system from on a well
[1:57:57] and then is required
upon expansion of the town's water
[1:58:03] system
to become part of it?
[1:58:08] If they're exempted and allowed to build
a gray water system.
[1:58:13] Hm. Thought it's worth discussion.
>> Thank you.
[1:58:15] » Can you state how many times this has
happened in the past?
[1:58:19] I'm just teasing.
>> [laughter]
[1:58:21] » No, there are no past examples.
Just thought it was worth mentioning. It
[1:58:26] seems like a valid point, Mr. Whitman.
Yeah, was not aware of that.
[1:58:32] Probably need to address it. All right.
Um we'd need direction on how to address
[1:58:38] it, though.
[1:58:44] Yeah, Attorney Whitman, part of that
problem is the investment a homeowner
[1:58:47] might wait might make in a system like
that and then to be directed to cap it
[1:58:52] or something, uh that's an issue that
ought to be
[1:58:56] uh covered. And you know, right now I
think our well permits, as well as our
[1:59:00] taps, are about $20,000.
And so, it's probably something in the
[1:59:03] range of double that.
I don't know.
[1:59:09] Well, my my initial opinion is that it
would behoove us to
[1:59:15] um prohibit it altogether with that
being possible.
[1:59:20] So, that we don't uh
so that we don't force a consumer to
[1:59:25] spend money that we're going to then
therefore force him to unspend it
[1:59:30] at great expense. So,
anyway, that's just
[1:59:35] first impression.
[1:59:38] Marty?
Martha Brotzik, 551 Highway 105. Just a
[1:59:42] word of caution. Just like STRs and
before they were legal and people had
[1:59:47] them,
talked to PPD
[1:59:51] in 2010
about gray water.
[1:59:56] And they said, "Ooh, please don't do
that."
[1:59:59] » [clears throat]
>> I said, "Show me the code."
[2:00:03] "We don't have code."
It's been what, 15 years?
[2:00:08] There are people out there that have
gray water systems. I'm just cautioning,
[2:00:12] okay? It's just
there's nothing that says you can't do
[2:00:16] it. So,
that's another twist to the problem.
[2:00:20] Thank you.
[2:00:30] Didn't this come about by some sort of a
state statute that gives us the right to
[2:00:35] opt in or opt out of a gray water
>> Yes.
[2:00:37] » Yes. situation? Yep. So, there is
something out there.
[2:00:42] Well,
[2:00:46] Well, but it only came in January.
>> require us It doesn't require us I
[2:00:50] understand. All I'm trying to do is make
a point just like Mr. Steffin did that
[2:00:55] there are idiosyncrasies with this that
nuances that you kind of have to pay
[2:01:00] attention to.
I'm talking to the county policy that's
[2:01:05] over 15 years old. The state statute is
much more recent.
[2:01:09] » I understand.
>> And and it's not all or not It's either
[2:01:13] you opt in or opt out. I'm just saying
there's a lot of scenarios you got to
[2:01:17] think about.
[2:01:20] Mr. Mayor, Board of Trustees, I believe
there in our code there is something
[2:01:24] speaking specifically to um
the water system, not a water district,
[2:01:31] and also the sewer, but I don't have it
up in front of me, but um
[2:01:37] in our research there at that time there
there was something. And I don't know if
[2:01:40] it's in the new code. I can't even think
under Well, it sounds to me like we
[2:01:45] don't necessarily have enough
information to go forward on voting on
[2:01:49] this ordinance until we get some more
research done. So, I would move to
[2:01:56] table this until that is done or next
meeting or something of that sort. I'll
[2:02:01] second.
I think
[2:02:04] Sorry. Just a point of clarification. I
think it's a a continuation, not a
[2:02:08] tabling. Is that correct? I believe
you're right. Sorry.
[2:02:12] » [laughter]
>> Can I make one comment? Yeah, for Chaz,
[2:02:16] can we confirm that
Palmer Lake Sanitation District has
[2:02:20] banned gray water?
[2:02:24] I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Talking
about Palmer Lake Sanitation. They're
[2:02:28] still involved in gray water. They are.
Have they
[2:02:32] Do we have confirmation they banned gray
water?
[2:02:36] Um not from Becky. I've talked to Jeff
and he said Becky said it was banned.
[2:02:42] But regardless of their stance, I would
still like to opt out of greywater.
[2:02:46] Um
So, I could go through my reasons.
[2:02:51] I again, if you want me to. I
I don't disagree with your reasons. I
[2:02:56] I agree with your reasons.
My only concern is
[2:03:00] greywater affects not only the water,
but also sanitation.
[2:03:04] And
if
[2:03:07] I I looked at the Homolka sanitation
meetings, but I didn't see where they
[2:03:12] passed a motion banning greywater usage.
Okay. So, that's one of my concerns is
[2:03:18] we need to be in
in a kind of in sync.
[2:03:21] You know, if we're going not going to do
it, they shouldn't do it either.
[2:03:25] I agree. I agree.
[2:03:30] And for
the citizens that aren't familiar with
[2:03:33] this, I wasn't any familiar with
greywater at all except for my camping
[2:03:38] and going on the Colorado trip, but
in the past week I've done a lot of
[2:03:42] research. You certainly helped enlighten
us, Chad. I think the key reasons to opt
[2:03:47] out you pointed really well. If anyone
else didn't see it, I think the
[2:03:51] increased cost to the town, the
increased regulation, just a a litany of
[2:03:55] things that would arise if we opted in.
So, I concur so far with what we've
[2:04:02] learned that opting out would be in the
best interest of the town both
[2:04:06] financially and otherwise. Thank you.
[2:04:11] Um
I think it is actually the consensus of
[2:04:14] the board to opt out in terms of our
water system, but the question on the
[2:04:19] table
seems to be about those that have wells.
[2:04:24] Yeah, I think the two the two questions
I heard,
[2:04:26] uh if I may paraphrase them.
So, couple of questions. What happens
[2:04:30] when people have to join the town water
system who have existing greywater
[2:04:34] systems who are on wells today? And then
the other question was what happens if
[2:04:39] they already have a greywater system and
we decide to opt out? Right? So like do
[2:04:44] they then have to terminate their
greywater system or they you know what
[2:04:48] what is the what is the direction for
dealing with that situation?
[2:04:53] Do you know if there's anyone on the
town water system that has a greywater
[2:04:57] system?
Not that I'm aware of.
[2:05:00] Yeah, but I think that was pertaining to
wells also that latter point. Both
[2:05:04] points were pertaining to people who had
wells and greywater systems alongside
[2:05:08] their wells. Yeah.
Susan Minor
[2:05:12] um Highway 105 Palmer Lake
um
[2:05:18] we have a greywater system that
was probably established in the early
[2:05:22] 50s just after water was brought into
the house.
[2:05:27] Um before that water wasn't in the
house. It was outside.
[2:05:32] And if the water ever were to come down
105
[2:05:38] which it almost did with the Mission
Training International
[2:05:43] um
Bob and I don't have the financial
[2:05:46] ability to join into it at this point.
We have a perfectly
[2:05:51] working well
we're confined to our space. We are
[2:05:54] self-sufficient
in that
[2:05:57] realm
and to ask us to come up with 20 or 30
[2:06:02] thousand dollars
to trench out to the 105
[2:06:06] to hook in to city water
is not a financial thing that is is
[2:06:11] viable for us.
So it might be just easier to say
[2:06:17] [clears throat] if you're on a well
you have the choice to join city water
[2:06:22] or not
instead of making it you must and then
[2:06:28] we'll back into your greywater issue.
So you might just consider that because
[2:06:34] » Well, in in response to that, if I may,
uh
[2:06:38] um
Matt, did you state that it was in code
[2:06:42] that
[2:06:44] And there's something about distance.
It's in the well agreement
[2:06:50] Okay, so it seems like that's what would
need to be addressed in regards to your
[2:06:55] situation. Yeah, somewhere in there. So,
not necessarily and and the gray water
[2:07:00] is kind of an aside. So, I don't know
what you need to do to
[2:07:05] research and address that initial
question,
[2:07:08] but you make a good point. Yeah. Su- Su-
I waited till the water had gone down
[2:07:13] 105. It's going to be a long time. Yeah.
Susan, you and I were probably in the
[2:07:18] same boat. Our We have pre-1985 wells.
And the well permits that the folks in
[2:07:25] the East End, I think, step Matt, aren't
they later than '85?
[2:07:30] That's why you have that in your well
permit. See, so
[2:07:34] Our well was back in 1904. Yeah,
exactly.
[2:07:38] Yeah. But
we were forced
[2:07:41] to join the town water and financially
it's not so
[2:07:45] We can't
I understand. Sorry.
[2:07:51] Yeah, so um
I encourage you to to pursue,
[2:07:56] you know, whatever might be necessary to
clarify what which well permits have
[2:08:03] this attached to them. Maybe yours
doesn't, I don't know.
[2:08:07] Um but it's this kind of a separate
issue from the gray water stuff, okay?
[2:08:13] In my opinion.
Uh again,
[2:08:16] uh
my motion is to continue this until we
[2:08:20] have further
answers.
[2:08:23] Um
and do I have a second? Yeah, he seconds
[2:08:26] it.
>> Yeah, I do have a second. So, all in
[2:08:28] favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed?
Hearing no opposition, this is continued
[2:08:34] until we have more answers. Hopefully,
next meeting.
[2:08:39] Okay?
[2:08:42] All right, you may have to come back
again
[2:08:45] in regards to this subject. So.
>> That's fine. All right. And I I
[2:08:52] I understand that, but just before that,
you know, I don't know what Kent may
[2:08:57] come up with, but you guys can talk,
you know, before next meeting if
[2:09:01] necessary, etc. Yeah, we need to read
from the same sheet of music, yeah.
[2:09:06] All right. And then you had something
else?
[2:09:09] I do. I have a uh
a request. I would like to uh it's a
[2:09:14] request concerning water restrictions.
Um
[2:09:18] so, I would like to respectfully request
that the Board of Trustees consider
[2:09:22] delegating limited administrative
authority to implement and adjust water
[2:09:27] use restrictions as conditions warrant.
Um currently, the town code provides for
[2:09:33] water restrictions, primarily under
emergency uh emergency declaration.
[2:09:39] However, uh changing conditions such as
seasonal demand, drought indicators,
[2:09:43] system capacity,
supply levels, and and things like
[2:09:47] administrative calls on the creek by the
Department of Natural Resources,
[2:09:51] um require potentially more flexible
responses that may not
[2:09:56] rise to the level of a formal emergency.
Um
[2:10:01] so, um this week, today actually, we we
got a call on the creek for senior
[2:10:06] users. So,
we've had to
[2:10:08] basically shut down on surface water
production.
[2:10:11] Um
and we're going to have to use our wells
[2:10:15] a lot more now.
Um
[2:10:18] that came today, that started at noon,
and there was a call yesterday on the
[2:10:21] creek that wasn't as senior as us, so we
were okay, but
[2:10:26] the one today trumps us, so
we have to we can't we can't use water
[2:10:32] out of the creek as long as they have
that call. Now, it's indefinite, but uh
[2:10:37] it's indefinite. It should be until they
satisfy their
[2:10:41] their uh allotment, but
I don't know when that's going to be
[2:10:46] for right now, so
um I would like to implement further
[2:10:50] outdoor water restrictions for now, and
it may come to further reductions in the
[2:10:56] future.
But,
[2:10:59] I want to be able to make that decision
quickly
[2:11:02] because the situation can change like it
did today. I
[2:11:06] Glenn, how do you communicate that to
the residents quick quick quickly?
[2:11:12] You can put it out You can put it
online.
[2:11:15] Online and water bills.
[2:11:19] Yeah, we have a
uh process. We put it online. Uh we let
[2:11:23] our local uh outlets know about it. We
do our water billing. We'll use our
[2:11:29] marquee on Main Street. Um every
resource we can. Um
[2:11:34] Chaz and I also discussed if he felt uh
more information was needed, we would
[2:11:39] send out individual flyers to residents.
Um
[2:11:44] in the event we have to go into it
quicker than than when the bills cut or
[2:11:48] something to that effect.
So, yeah, we'll use all those um
[2:11:52] PR strategies.
>> an emergency declaration. I mean, in my
[2:11:56] head an emergency is like a fire in the
canyon and it burns our plant down or
[2:12:00] something.
>> Yeah, the issue we came upon is, you
[2:12:03] know, under water conservation, which
we're under right now, it um so
[2:12:07] specifically defines what those
restrictions are. And those have been in
[2:12:11] code
forever. And what it really doesn't do,
[2:12:14] it doesn't allow Chaz, you know, like
for instance, right now it says Monday,
[2:12:18] Wednesday, Friday and I'm just saying
hypothetically Monday, Wednesday, Friday
[2:12:21] you can water from this time to this
time. Well, right now um
[2:12:25] Chaz fills value in kind of a different
schedule. Um where it won't really um
[2:12:33] I mean it'll still impact the citizen,
but um
[2:12:37] I guess
>> I had considered maybe a a 2-day a week
[2:12:40] restriction, but
>> different times.
[2:12:42] » Um I think maybe leaving the days that
are in place for odd and even addresses,
[2:12:47] but cutting out one of the time blocks.
It's currently 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and
[2:12:51] 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. Yeah, but if we wanted
to go 5:00 to 9:00 or something, you
[2:12:55] know, it's in res we have to bring you
know, in the evening Right.
[2:12:59] » days. So, if you designated authority to
Chaz as the SME of the water or the or
[2:13:05] the water as the water supervisor, you'd
allow him to direct that a little bit
[2:13:08] more so we could get it going quicker.
Um that's really all your intent was
[2:13:13] when you and I discussed it.
>> and I wanted to say that, you know,
[2:13:16] should you delegate that, it would still
remain subject to clearly defined
[2:13:20] parameters within town code or policy,
oversight by the administrator and the
[2:13:25] Board of Trustees, uh regular reporting
to the board regarding actions taken.
[2:13:31] Um
anyway, I think this approach would
[2:13:33] allow the town to respond more
efficiently to changing conditions um
[2:13:37] while still maintaining transparency and
accountability. Chaz, if we delegated
[2:13:41] this to you, could we just say next 6
months and then it's reverts back?
[2:13:45] That's kind of what I my thought is at
least the way things look now through
[2:13:49] the summer or at least, you know, if we
start getting regular precipitation, we
[2:13:53] can go ahead and rescind it.
>> Yeah, that was my question. Does this a
[2:13:57] code change or is this a
>> the purpose because in the event, you
[2:14:01] know, then you'll just have to change
the code again.
[2:14:02] » Right. Delegating authority is allowing
him to make the recommendation of or
[2:14:07] keep the board informed, but it gives
him the flexibility
[2:14:11] to change you know, again, that's just a
different restriction. Right. I I
[2:14:14] » Without having to change code or write
new code, right?
[2:14:18] » Right. So, if it says 6 months, I mean,
I don't just my opinion, but can't I
[2:14:22] don't know.
[2:14:28] Well, I think you could do it either
way. It's at the board's discretion. You
[2:14:31] could limit the time period that you
delegate that authority or make it a
[2:14:35] permanent arrangement. If you made it a
permanent arrangement, but there was
[2:14:39] checks and balances where Jazz was or
whoever was the operator was required to
[2:14:44] check in and keep you apprised, it
probably had the necessary safeguards in
[2:14:49] place.
[2:14:54] Yeah, that that actually answered my
questions, which is, you know, yeah, I I
[2:14:59] don't disagree with your request. I
think it's a a suitable request. And
[2:15:04] you know, as you you already touched on
those elements that I was concerned
[2:15:07] about, which is reporting to the board,
making of course the public aware and
[2:15:11] um
you know, keeping us abreast of what's
[2:15:13] happening and what decisions you've
taken. Uh I think those that's
[2:15:17] reasonable.
Uh and this is a staff staff direction,
[2:15:20] right? So, not not a code change, if I'm
understanding correctly. No. Is that
[2:15:25] » Well, it would be because there's
actually code provisions on
[2:15:30] water conservation and when to declare
an emergency and when restrictions go
[2:15:35] into place, what they are.
So, yeah, it would be an amendment.
[2:15:39] Okay.
[2:15:41] Also, quick question. So,
there was discussion that got into very
[2:15:46] specific
particular
[2:15:49] provisions around water restrictions
right now. [clears throat] Are you also
[2:15:52] asking for some guidance on that or was
that just an example?
[2:15:58] Could you repeat that one more time? So,
there was some discussion back and forth
[2:16:01] a minute ago, I think between you and
Erica, about particular, you know,
[2:16:05] watering times and restrictions as well.
So, my question is, are you also asking
[2:16:09] us for help or guidance on that or was
that just an example? Not necessarily,
[2:16:13] but I'm I'm open to
recommendations or suggestions.
[2:16:18] » Right. I I I don't want to
have too large of an impact on Right. on
[2:16:22] people in town. I Something I hate to
do, but it's it's become necessary, so.
[2:16:28] So, it's probably a
you know,
[2:16:30] an obvious answer to this question, but
uh
[2:16:36] bottom line is that our wells can't
handle the increased demand.
[2:16:42] They can handle it, but
when there's a call on the creek like
[2:16:46] this, I've I'm effectively limited to
just the wells.
[2:16:51] So, I've lost an entire source of of
water.
[2:16:55] So, the wells can handle it. They're
designed to. They're designed to run. Um
[2:17:00] but now all the
demand burden is placed strictly on the
[2:17:04] wells and we really use them as a
supplement now.
[2:17:07] I mean, most of our water in the town
for demand comes out of the creek.
[2:17:12] So, it will require running that
equipment quite a bit more than we
[2:17:16] usually do. And And it'll be fine, but
it's just it's a big change.
[2:17:20] It's a big change to rely solely on that
now.
[2:17:22] » You're being proactive, in other words,
in regards [snorts] to
[2:17:26] just being moderate in our use of just
wells.
[2:17:31] If I'm hearing you right.
>> I think what he said was the the You
[2:17:35] said the creek source has been cut off.
Therefore, we have to use the wells as
[2:17:41] our only source, right?
It will be essentially a sole source.
[2:17:46] Yeah. While especially while this call
is on the creek. Okay. Um since they
[2:17:50] trump us, they get to fill they get to
use whatever water's there to fulfill
[2:17:53] their
>> ask who it is? So, I have to take a
[2:17:55] backseat to that. May I ask who is the
senior senior uh
[2:18:02] Who has senior rights us that's asking
for this?
[2:18:07] Who has senior rights?
Oh, the call is
[2:18:12] I think it's ultimately Springs
Utilities, but it's uh the name of it.
[2:18:19] The name of the call is it's from the uh
Banister song.
[2:18:23] And uh they
they have 160 days seniority on about
[2:18:29] this. All of our infrastructure is
theirs.
[2:18:32] They just do. That's all the case.
That's all the case for them. I
[2:18:34] understand that I understand the
legality of it. Yeah.
[2:18:38] All right. So, but I think that Banister
song right along Springs Utilities.
[2:18:43] Okay.
[2:18:47] Okay. So, I think the
the board needs to direct staff on
[2:18:53] changing the code to allow him to be
able to take administrative like
[2:18:57] administrative actions.
Is that right? I think it's it's a
[2:19:01] motion rather than a direction. Well,
it's a direction to prepare the changes
[2:19:07] and then it will be a motion for us to
adopt the resolution, right? I think
[2:19:11] it's direction to create a code
amendment for the next meeting. So, will
[2:19:16] he or will he not be able to implement
uh before or after
[2:19:22] we approve what you bring back to us?
Well, in the interim
[2:19:27] um
you can declare a
[2:19:29] an emergency.
And you have you don't have to implement
[2:19:34] all of those restrictions. You have that
whole laundry list of restrictions that
[2:19:38] are listed in the code for conservation
measures. Okay. Um so, that that'd be an
[2:19:43] option.
Tonight. That was in
[2:19:48] You might want to speak to that. Right
now, I don't feel Chaz was hesitant to
[2:19:52] call an emergency. Could we get a little
more volume potentially?
[2:19:59] Sorry. Do you want to speak You had
shared with me about you weren't in a
[2:20:03] position where he really wanted to We're
not like in an emergency level, right?
[2:20:07] » Understood. And so that's part of why
our hands were tied when we were
[2:20:11] evaluating the code. He wants to be able
to restrict it, but he does not want to
[2:20:16] want it to call it an emergency and I
That's where
[2:20:18] » to implement further
restrictions if necessary without
[2:20:23] rising to the level of calling it an
emergency. Right. So do you feel because
[2:20:27] in order to make this change, you know,
they have to do it via resolution, which
[2:20:32] would be the next meeting.
Are you okay with having, you know,
[2:20:35] that's 2 weeks till our next meeting
before you can go in and change it from
[2:20:39] what it currently is under conservation
right now. That's basically, I think,
[2:20:42] what they need to understand.
>> okay operating in the short term
[2:20:46] the way things are. Yes. Okay.
I guess and in the event an emergency,
[2:20:52] you know, we go to
different levels and an emergency needs
[2:20:55] to be called, then we would come back to
the board with that.
[2:20:59] And that's all we can really do because
that code is so restrictive.
[2:21:06] Another question I have is do you have
a chart of what changes you want to make
[2:21:12] on the restrictions?
[2:21:15] Well, I haven't
really decided and then like I said, I
[2:21:19] could I'd use input from you from the
board. Um
[2:21:23] if we wanted to go to a 2-day a week
restriction from the current 3-day
[2:21:28] and leave the watering times in place,
my thought was to leave the days in
[2:21:32] place because that's what people are
used to. So if we went to 2 days, I'd
[2:21:36] want to implement
2 days for everybody to water on and
[2:21:40] that's probably going to throw everybody
off.
[2:21:43] Like if we did Tuesday and Saturday or
something, well,
[2:21:46] now people are going to have to get used
to doing a new routine. So my thought
[2:21:50] was keeping the days in place and maybe
changing it to one watering period like
[2:21:55] 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 or a a 6:00 to 10:00
p.m. but taking away the morning
[2:21:59] watering time block.
And so that effectively cuts our outdoor
[2:22:04] usage in half, right? So.
[2:22:09] But I'm I'm open to suggestions.
>> I agree with leaving the days and and
[2:22:14] and shortening the hours.
[2:22:19] So we're just going to one one time
block rather than two time blocks.
[2:22:24] That's what I that's what I thought.
>> One time block instead of two. I and the
[2:22:27] same days that you have now for
watering. I think it makes it easier for
[2:22:30] everybody that way.
[2:22:34] » Um
So again, we need a motion. Is that
[2:22:38] correct?
No, just direction.
[2:22:42] Just direction to create an ordinance
along those lines.
[2:22:45] » Okay.
All in favor of creating an ordinance
[2:22:49] along those lines. Aye.
>> Aye. Opposed?
[2:22:53] Hearing no opposed, the direction has
been given.
[2:22:57] So I'm still a little bit unclear. I
understand, of course, we're going to
[2:22:59] have the ordinance change, but I'm still
a little bit unclear as to whether or
[2:23:02] not we actually gave you proper
direction on changing the
[2:23:06] watering restriction time.
>> it until we pass the law. And it would
[2:23:10] be at his direction as the water
supervisor ORC. He would come to the
[2:23:14] board based off of his evaluation of
water levels. I mean, they measure them
[2:23:18] all day long. That's what, you know,
he's our water expert for the town. He
[2:23:22] will come and make recommendations to
the board in the event he needs to
[2:23:26] restrict those water restrict
the water usage. Um and I would think
[2:23:32] you would come with, you know, an
explanation as to why we're doing that
[2:23:36] based off of levels.
I mean, that's really what it is. It's
[2:23:39] allowing him to bring that
recommendation to the board and from
[2:23:43] there if the board decides, you know,
no, those are too restrictive or no, we
[2:23:48] don't want to do that, then that would
be the time to say so.
[2:23:50] » where we're at right now with the call
on the creek, and again, this won't be
[2:23:53] permanent.
It's in It's indefinite when they'll
[2:23:56] stop the call, but it's effectively like
having a dry creek right now. That water
[2:24:00] doesn't It doesn't belong to us now. So,
I I'm ready to, you know, implement some
[2:24:06] restrictions
as soon as we can.
[2:24:12] I believe you've been given direction.
[2:24:17] Um that's the end of our uh business
items. Uh
[2:24:24] Yes, sir.
[2:24:29] Um so
>> State your name and I'm sorry. Matt
[2:24:32] Steffen, Circle Drive.
Um
[2:24:34] two things in relation to this.
One,
[2:24:39] we're hesitating
to declare a water emergency,
[2:24:44] but it sounds like he's requesting
restrictions be placed immediately,
[2:24:48] which I'm not hearing direction being
given from the board to implement.
[2:24:52] Secondly,
if the ordinance is written and
[2:24:56] presented to you next time, if it's not
in an emergency status, it'll be 30 days
[2:25:01] before it can be implemented. So, you
would be It's not an ordinance. It's a
[2:25:05] resolution. I'm sorry. It's a
resolution.
[2:25:07] » And so, the 30 days doesn't apply. But
you would be changing town code, would
[2:25:11] that not require 30 days notice for the
public?
[2:25:15] Well, even with an ordinance, if it is
to protect the health and safety
[2:25:20] and welfare of the town, it can go into
effect immediately.
[2:25:23] » Okay. And your first point is exactly my
question, which is he sounds like he's
[2:25:27] asking for help. He's asking for help
now.
[2:25:30] » to get
trying to get it to him in an expedient
[2:25:32] fashion.
>> Right. So, so
[2:25:35] uh town clerk just said he will come
with recommendations and requests for
[2:25:41] implementing restrictions.
You gave direction to the attorney to
[2:25:45] write the ordinance but or the
resolution but not necessarily to
[2:25:48] implement immediately water
restrictions, which it sounds like is
[2:25:52] what he's asking for. And if we're
looking at potential for 150 days of a
[2:25:56] dry creek or an essentially dry creek,
it sounds like the restrictions are
[2:26:02] being requested now. And I wasn't
hearing action being given on that.
[2:26:06] » What I heard recommended to us from this
side of the
[2:26:10] uh uh ordinance
>> He can't come to you now with He doesn't
[2:26:14] have that power. Correct. Without going
into the
[2:26:18] You could declare an emergency and
with
[2:26:22] Jazz, you know, working with the board,
you could implement specific
[2:26:26] restrictions now.
Okay.
[2:26:30] I hadn't heard that before. Okay. Um I'm
willing to do that.
[2:26:35] Um it's one of our precious resources,
so
[2:26:40] um
[2:26:42] So, that would require
direction or a motion?
[2:26:51] Do you want to do an emergency? Like
that's what they're asking. Yes. Yes.
[2:26:55] Yeah, I as I thought you said
>> I get I mean, we can if if Yeah, if you
[2:26:59] want to, that's That's also fine. It
gets the intended result. I mean, in my
[2:27:04] head, I'm just thinking emergency is
like
[2:27:06] a plant goes down and I physically have
I don't have it anymore, right? But
[2:27:11] That's an extreme emergency. This is
This is
[2:27:15] » Right, you know, Yeah.
I guess I ultimately I'm fine either
[2:27:19] way. The The declaration
>> like to get some some
[2:27:22] » The
>> Does it require you to do all the
[2:27:26] restrictions listed in the code? You can
do one of the restrictions.
[2:27:30] » Whatever. Okay. And that that discretion
would be his or still ours?
[2:27:37] You would ask his what? I think you
could delegate that as part of the
[2:27:41] resolution declaring an emergency.
Okay. So, that requires a motion? Yes.
[2:27:50] I move that we declare an emergency and
delegate the
[2:27:55] um response to said emergency to our
water operator.
[2:28:00] Do I have a second? I'll second that.
All in favor? I.
[2:28:05] » I. I.
There are none opposed. Consider
[2:28:09] yourself delegated.
Good. Thank you. You're welcome.
[2:28:17] One last question. So, am I bringing in
Are we bringing a resolution back on the
[2:28:21] verbage for the conservation delegating
him aside from the emergencies?
[2:28:26] » Ask ask our town attorney. What what is
the
[2:28:28] » Well, what I need to know what the
board's direction is.
[2:28:31] » the answer is still yes.
>> Thank you.
[2:28:36] All right.
[2:28:38] Um now we're done with the business
items.
[2:28:43] Okay.
Um and so, we'll open it up to public
[2:28:47] comment. And we have uh Ms. Minor.
[2:28:54] Susan Minor,
um 105 Palmer Lake.
[2:28:58] Um
Following [clears throat]
[2:29:00] uh Trustee Yurkus' point about all the
board members should be working from the
[2:29:06] same knowledge base,
before you go into executive session to
[2:29:12] discuss
the Elephant Rock property, I'd like to
[2:29:16] refer you back to resolution 25 of 2024,
where the board desires to involve town
[2:29:24] organizations and members of the public
in providing input into the vision of
[2:29:29] the land use plan for the Elephant Rock
property by providing a recommendation
[2:29:34] to the Board of Trustees to better
enable the Board of Trustees to make a
[2:29:39] determination on the use of the
property. The purpose, and that's
[2:29:43] paragraph number three, item number two,
the purpose of the advisory committee is
[2:29:48] to provide
the Board of Trustees a recommendation
[2:29:53] of the vision of the Palmer the Elephant
Rock property in the form of possible
[2:29:59] land use plan within 90 days of the
resolution. We met all of those
[2:30:04] requirements.
I was appointed by the Board when I was
[2:30:08] on the Board
to work with Planning Commission to do
[2:30:12] the master plan.
At that point, we determined that the
[2:30:16] Elephant Rock property was a unique
enough element that it should have its
[2:30:21] own master plan approved by the Planning
Commission and the Board of Trustees to
[2:30:28] take that approach.
This resolution was charging me with
[2:30:35] setting up an organization involving
all the committees that we had outlined,
[2:30:42] which is all the
different groups in town that were
[2:30:46] stakeholders
to develop the master plan for the
[2:30:50] Elephant Rock property.
In that master plan, we went back to all
[2:30:55] of the input from the citizens. There
were 60 ideas for that property. They
[2:31:02] were ranked. They were ranked by
plausibility, by use of the property,
[2:31:08] and by use of the structures that were
there.
[2:31:12] Of the 60,
47
[2:31:15] had fee income attached to them, and 16
had the a proper
[2:31:21] um sales tax opportunities.
We presented 146
[2:31:27] pages
of documentation
[2:31:30] of all of those ideas, of their
financial viability, of the resources
[2:31:36] that could fill those financial
viability, and of all of the sources of
[2:31:41] income that could come from that.
I would request that because most of
[2:31:47] you, I would think, have not read this
document, it is an addendum to the
[2:31:52] master plan, which you have proven
dependency on,
[2:31:59] and that the planning commission uses as
a document. Before you talk about the
[2:32:04] property, you should know what the
citizens wanted done with the town
[2:32:09] property.
I would respectfully ask you to not have
[2:32:13] that executive session and discuss the
fate until you all know what you're
[2:32:19] talking about.
On the same page. Thank you.
[2:32:22] » Susan, what was the resolution number,
please? 25
[2:32:26] of 2024. Thank you.
And with paragraph three is what I read,
[2:32:32] and then item number two. Thank you.
[2:32:44] Martha Brodzik, 551 Highway 105. Really
quick, the process that we've been
[2:32:49] following in the town for the monthly
financials is
[2:32:53] that they're brought before the board
uh
[2:32:57] two board meetings after the close of
the month.
[2:33:00] Um
in the last few months, we've been
[2:33:02] getting them
three board meetings after, which is
[2:33:06] five to six weeks. And just two weeks
ago in the
[2:33:11] workshop with our new accountant, your
part-time controller, they even said
[2:33:17] with one of their flags to avoid CORAs,
it's best to provide the monthly
[2:33:22] financials within two two weeks of the
month closing out. Please consider that.
[2:33:27] Thank you.
[2:33:34] Before I was pushed aside, I was going
to come up
[2:33:37] and talk about the water issue.
Uh I'm Paul Olivier, 301 Sterling
[2:33:43] Avenue,
Palmer Lake.
[2:33:46] While I was mayor,
uh Colorado Springs also cut off our use
[2:33:51] of the
water from the lake uh from the
[2:33:55] reservoirs and from the
creek.
[2:33:59] Uh I got to know the Colorado Springs
mayor
[2:34:04] fairly well.
I gave him a call.
[2:34:08] I said,
"Could you
[2:34:12] shut off your call
because you have water from a lot of
[2:34:16] other sources
other than
[2:34:19] the creek here?"
He said, "I'm perfectly willing to do
[2:34:23] that." And we were
able to continue using water from the
[2:34:28] reservoir and from the creek. So, that's
something that took place about 39 years
[2:34:34] ago, but it was possible to do that
then.
[2:34:38] Maybe it's possible to do that now,
although a lot of change has taken place
[2:34:44] in Colorado Springs. Thank you. Thank
you.
[2:34:56] Uh hello. Name's Eric Sept, live on
Woodmoor Acres [clears throat] Drive in
[2:34:59] Monument, Colorado. Can you speak up,
Eric?
[2:35:01] » up, please? Oh, can you hear me now?
Speak a little louder, please. Can you
[2:35:05] hear me now?
>> In the microphone. Oh, hello.
[2:35:09] » [laughter]
>> Um Eric Sept, uh
[2:35:11] live on Woodmoor Acres Drive, Monument,
Colorado. Uh I appreciate that uh the
[2:35:16] town has sounds like a lot of overdue
business. You have a list of items.
[2:35:20] Uh really my only question is is when
are all of those people that have
[2:35:25] effective item affected items going to
be met with?
[2:35:30] Like what is the schedule for meeting
with all of us?
[2:35:39] If I might If I might ask a question,
Mr. Sepp.
[2:35:42] Um
just for the public consumption once
[2:35:44] again, Mr. Sepp owns um
at least 30, maybe 35 acres
[2:35:50] just below Ben Loman on the 105 side.
He has been trying [snorts] now for how
[2:35:56] many months, Mr. Sepp? 6, 8 months? It's
actually I looked it up. Um I first
[2:36:00] contact I was first contacted by Tim
Caves uh April 1st of 2025 to start a
[2:36:06] conservation easement. Okay, and so the
problem we're facing here is he's he's
[2:36:11] willing to donate the land to our town.
We just need to get him together
[2:36:16] with legal counsel because
the problem is if I'm if I'm out of if
[2:36:23] I'm out of turn, I'll stop. I'm sorry.
I just want to remind the board and Mr.
[2:36:27] Sepp a lot of this discussion has been
uh discussed in executive session and
[2:36:32] not for the public uh to a certain
certain level. So, to keep the
[2:36:36] negotiations secure, I would look to
Kent on how to advise us when speaking
[2:36:41] on this topic. But I think I can save us
some time here, hopefully, because I'm
[2:36:45] always long-winded. But as you guys all
noticed earlier, we discussed this
[2:36:49] priority list, which prime example is
Mr. Sepp's project. Staff is
[2:36:54] continuously
um approached or contacted by residents
[2:36:59] um
requesting updates and status and
[2:37:03] meetings and everything pertaining to
this
[2:37:07] um information on the list due to lack
of legal counsel and now, you know lack
[2:37:12] of planners, we're not able to give them
an answer. We are working forward and
[2:37:17] and I feel in a better position now with
Kent and and this list we have a path
[2:37:21] forward.
But again, that's that's where the
[2:37:24] board's going to have to help us
prioritize, you know, speaking earlier
[2:37:28] with the hearing and the investigation
as Kent said, that's consuming majority
[2:37:33] of his time right now. He has received
information from this list, but he has
[2:37:37] to get up to speed if I'm and I don't
want to speak for you. I'll let you
[2:37:40] speak for yourself. Some of these will
take some time.
[2:37:45] Yeah, just to add to that and and
hopefully address Mr. Sepp's question.
[2:37:51] There's a lot on the list and that's why
we need guidance from the board where
[2:37:57] you want me to
uh you know, focus my time because
[2:38:02] um
there's a year's worth of stuff or more
[2:38:05] on here. So, I need direction on where
you want me to focus. And just for maybe
[2:38:11] more amplification and and tell me to
stop if I because I I I didn't attend
[2:38:15] that executive session. The practical
consequences of stalling this particular
[2:38:21] request is that he's relying on tax
credits.
[2:38:26] And when those are gone,
he's going to build and that's his
[2:38:29] right. So, we can either put him very
very high and potentially get land given
[2:38:35] to us
or we can continue to stall
[2:38:39] and then according to our master plan,
105, we want to keep that as an open
[2:38:43] space. He's allowed he he wants to do
that.
[2:38:46] Let's let him do that, please. Let's
move him up to the very top. That's all
[2:38:50] I'm asking.
>> that we're stalling
[2:38:52] » stalling. So, I think that's the wrong
word.
[2:38:54] » Okay, he's been trying for 6 to 8
months. He was never
[2:38:57] » a It's not a matter of stalling. We
haven't had a an attorney. He We had an
[2:39:01] attorney for several months. Our
attorney didn't meet with him. That's a
[2:39:05] fact.
Let's be very clear. Well, I believe
[2:39:09] that the word stall is incorrect.
>> Yeah, okay, I retract.
[2:39:12] I retract stall. We've been unable to
meet with him.
[2:39:15] » Yes, that's true. We have.
>> Yes, and
[2:39:18] No, that's not true. I have attorney
bills from my attorney, Chris Cummins. I
[2:39:23] was billed as we were trying to get Mr.
Crab to meet with us. He was
[2:39:29] unresponsive uh for months
before he met. Yes, we had meetings, but
[2:39:35] it should not take 6 to 8 weeks
to get a meeting and have me get
[2:39:40] invoiced by my attorney to hunt down the
town attorney. I would I'm not I'm not
[2:39:45] going to make this contentious, but we
did have meetings.
[2:39:48] » Yeah. And I'm not going to have this
back and forth, but
[2:39:50] » No, I just want
>> this this project is far more
[2:39:52] complicated than some people like to
make it seem. Just so you know, this is
[2:39:57] not just a land donation. Here it is,
have a nice day, take the keys and go.
[2:40:01] Okay, there are a lot to do there.
There's easements there that have to be
[2:40:04] dealt with. There are other lots that
Mr. Septs does not own in that in that
[2:40:08] area that have to be dealt with. It
isn't as simple as everybody thinks it
[2:40:12] is. So, yes, I understand we didn't have
an attorney. I understand it's taken a
[2:40:15] long time, and I understand everybody's
frustrated. But and I understand if the
[2:40:19] board chooses to accelerate it to the
top, so be it. But nobody's stalling
[2:40:25] with this project. I'm not I'm not
asking for I'm nobody special. What I'm
[2:40:30] asking for is just
am I meeting tomorrow, next week, next
[2:40:35] year,
in 2035? When When can all of us
[2:40:41] business owners or just citizens at
large that have things to do with Palmer
[2:40:45] Lake, when when can we start to get
answers? Well,
[2:40:48] and again, um
if I may, because you're looking at me
[2:40:53] and I know you you contact me and ask
for updates. And I know Mr. Sept knows
[2:40:58] this. He is one of 33 of almost
identical issues were delayed on
[2:41:04] contract deadlines where people, you
know, we have other residents. And so,
[2:41:08] I'm not trying to minimize his concern,
but what I'm really trying to bring the
[2:41:12] attention to of the board is we really
have to get down to business. We have a
[2:41:17] lot of these pending issues despite
where they're at in the process, but out
[2:41:22] of the 33, we have 26 of them flagged as
ones, which is high priority. As And
[2:41:29] yours is on there, Mr. Sip as number
one. I mean, the Eco Spa, Highbrook, 21
[2:41:35] and five,
fire code that's delayed, the ADU. So,
[2:41:40] we have all all of these. The issues
with the land use is we've provided Kent
[2:41:45] with all of the information that we have
on behalf of the town.
[2:41:49] And he needs time to review and get
updated, in which you haven't been able
[2:41:53] to do
due to the investigation
[2:41:57] that he was working on. So, I just want
to be transparent and clear. We are
[2:42:01] doing everything staff can do. We need
board's direction on how to
[2:42:06] prioritize or change. How How are you
going to, you know, And ma'am, to to
[2:42:10] your credit, you you and Chief Smith
have been overly patient with me.
[2:42:15] I think we've been overly patient with
each other. And it would just help if
[2:42:19] there's just a general schedule that
like, you know, whoever, Jim Bob, you're
[2:42:24] going to get met with in 3 weeks,
whatever. Eric, you're going to get met
[2:42:27] with in 4 weeks. Like, can we just have
some generic
[2:42:32] plan?
>> I believe that your concern has been
[2:42:34] heard, and we as
Yeah,
[2:42:38] regardless, but as stated, we have been
tasked The board has been tasked with
[2:42:43] prioritizing this list. And again, we've
heard your concerns. We're very well
[2:42:48] aware of it. Um I believe that as a
board, the board as a whole will do its
[2:42:53] best to keep you at the top.
Thank you for your time.
[2:43:11] Hi, I'm Grace Foy in unincorporated
County.
[2:43:13] » You're going to have to speak up,
please. Can you hear me now?
[2:43:16] Better. Okay.
Um I just wanted to address the
[2:43:19] harassment complaint and subsequent
investigation and potential hearing
[2:43:24] involving Trustee Mosley. Anyone who has
attended or watched any of these
[2:43:29] meetings knows that Mr. Mosley speaks to
everyone in the same way. He challenges
[2:43:35] people across the board, men and women
alike, when he sees issues or
[2:43:40] incompetence. That's not harassment,
that's accountability.
[2:43:45] However, what is truly concerning here
is the inconsistency in how these types
[2:43:49] of matters are handled. In just the past
18 months, this community has witnessed
[2:43:55] multiple allegations involving other
officials, ranging from inappropriate
[2:44:00] gestures to serious misconduct that were
never investigated. Requests from both
[2:44:07] trustees and citizens for investigations
into collusion and inappropriate
[2:44:12] behavior were never investigated. There
have been public instances where the
[2:44:17] former mayor appeared to coordinate with
a lobbyist during a land use discussion.
[2:44:22] Members of the public have been called
degrading names, including sex workers,
[2:44:27] fat cows, and terrorists. Trustees have
been made have made obscene gestures,
[2:44:33] raised their voices, and even faced
accusations of physically intimidating a
[2:44:38] constituent.
The interim town administrator made an
[2:44:42] aggressive and unprofessional slashing
throat motion towards the audience and
[2:44:48] the planning commission chair told the
public to shut their mouths.
[2:44:52] People reported feeling threatened as
they were followed to their cars and
[2:44:57] there are extensive documents, concerns
about dishonesty and misrepresentation
[2:45:03] by former officials. These are not minor
issues. These are behaviors many would
[2:45:09] consider aggressive, intimidating, and
harassing, yet none were investigated.
[2:45:15] There are also serious concerns about
process. Multiple reports of harassment
[2:45:20] from other citizens do not result in
police reports or investigations, which
[2:45:25] raises legitimate concerns about
fairness and impartiality. At the same
[2:45:31] time, serious
At the same time, serious written
[2:45:34] complaints about conduct within the
administration, issues that directly
[2:45:39] impact public trust, have not been
addressed with this level of urgency or
[2:45:44] even any urgency at all. So, what has
changed? Why is this being pursued now
[2:45:50] under a different standard? From the
outside, this doesn't look like
[2:45:55] accountability. It looks like selective
enforcement or worse, retaliation. So,
[2:46:00] the question is simple. Are standards
being applied fairly or are individuals
[2:46:06] being targeted? Because Because of these
inconsistencies in enforcement, these
[2:46:11] unanswered concerns, and the clear
questions about fairness and process, a
[2:46:16] hearing for Trustee Mosley cannot move
forward in an incredible or impartial
[2:46:21] way.
[2:46:30] Trina Shuck.
[2:46:37] So, back to the question, um what is the
standard being applied here?
[2:46:42] And I'm saying this for public so that
it's on record.
[2:46:46] The allegations against Trustee Roger
Mosley describe a raised voice,
[2:46:51] an intimidating tone,
and pointing of a pen.
[2:46:57] Those are not legal standards. Those are
descriptions.
[2:47:02] I'm going to demonstrate something
briefly.
[2:47:05] This is a pen.
[2:47:11] The This pen is being emphasized
emphasized pointing at something.
[2:47:16] Um
I can use it.
[2:47:19] So, the question is
when does it become aggressive?
[2:47:26] Is it the motion? Is it the perception?
And more importantly, what makes it that
[2:47:33] gender-based?
[2:47:36] Now, let's talk about tone.
If I say,
[2:47:41] "Where's my application?"
versus "Where is my application?"
[2:47:46] versus "Where is my application?"
[2:47:52] So again, what is the standard?
Is there a defined decibel level?
[2:47:58] And if so, what is it?
And if volume is the issue, what about
[2:48:04] the individuals that are hearing
impaired?
[2:48:08] Is their threshold higher?
[2:48:14] Now, I want to address conduct already
in record involving Mr. Glenn Smith.
[2:48:20] There is documented conduct where
gestures are used with the, you know,
[2:48:25] slitting of the throat.
Um
[2:48:29] of him not returning my sign.
Uh still not getting my sign returned
[2:48:34] because I can't get a hold of the people
at the Awake the Lake.
[2:48:41] So, the question is
was that evaluated under the same
[2:48:46] standard?
Because if similar or more forceful
[2:48:49] conduct is treated differently depending
on the individual,
[2:48:54] then the issue is not conduct.
[2:49:01] Without a divine standard,
there is no reliable basis for
[2:49:05] conclusion.
[2:49:08] And I don't believe
that that hearing should be held.
[2:49:13] Thank you.
[2:49:23] Okay, you've just heard about the lack
of a defined standard.
[2:49:28] I want to address the legal basis.
This is not an employment lawsuit.
[2:49:34] This [snorts] is a proceeding involving
an elected official.
[2:49:39] Public statements refer for reference to
what was described as the power act,
[2:49:44] but the written charges do not identify
the statute.
[2:49:48] They do not
not define a legal standard.
[2:49:53] If the intent was to reference the
Protecting Opportunities and Workers
[2:49:57] Rights Act or the Colorado
Anti-Discrimination Act,
[2:50:01] those laws govern employ employment
uh relationships.
[2:50:07] They do not establish a legal basis for
removing an elected official.
[2:50:13] So the question is kind of simple.
What law is being applied?
[2:50:20] Due process requires a notice of the
allegations
[2:50:24] and notice of a legal basis.
Here the legal theory appears to have
[2:50:30] been introduced during a public meeting,
not in written charges.
[2:50:35] A hearing is not meaningful if the legal
standard is revealed during the hearing
[2:50:41] itself.
[2:50:44] Without a clearly identified legal
basis, the process itself is not
[2:50:50] reliable.
[2:50:57] Jean Colletti
Jean Colletti, Palmer Lake
[2:51:08] You've heard about the lack of defined
standard and the lack of clearly
[2:51:14] identified legal basis.
I want to address consistency and
[2:51:19] completeness of the process.
Because process is not just about what
[2:51:24] is investigated,
it is also about what is not
[2:51:29] investigated.
There were documented communications
[2:51:33] already in public record raising
concerns about statements and
[2:51:37] coordination involving third parties.
Trustee Otis Yeurka requested
[2:51:43] investigation into these matters. That
investigation did not occur.
[2:51:52] Yet this matter
is proceeding.
[2:51:57] So the question becomes what is the
standard for deciding what is
[2:52:01] investigated and what is not.
There is also the issue of authority and
[2:52:06] completeness.
Communications were sent directly to
[2:52:10] outside investigator, Employers Council,
asking on what stat- statutory authority
[2:52:18] they were acting to investigate a
sitting elected official.
[2:52:23] Those communications also informed them
that relevant information existed that
[2:52:29] should be considered as part of any fair
and complete
[2:52:34] review.
[2:52:39] We were told there would be a response.
There was no response.
[2:52:47] Follow-up communication was then sent to
Chief Executive Officer of the Board of
[2:52:52] Employers Council
raising the same concerns.
[2:52:56] That also received no response.
[2:53:02] So again, we are left with no clearly
identified legal authority, no response
[2:53:08] to questions about the authority, and no
indication that all relevant information
[2:53:15] was considered.
That matters
[2:53:19] because due process requires not just
a conclusion, but it
[2:53:24] but a process that is complete,
transparent, and accountable.
[2:53:30] And when questions about authority go
unanswered and relevant information is
[2:53:35] not acknowledged or incorporated,
the reliability of that outcome
[2:53:42] is called into question.
This is not simply a disagreement about
[2:53:48] facts.
It is a question of whether the process
[2:53:52] itself meets the basic standard of
fairness.
[2:54:03] Your time is going to be up. And so, if
you can wrap it up
[2:54:06] » Without a defined standard, without a
clearly identified legal basis, and
[2:54:12] without consistent
and complete application,
[2:54:17] there is no reliable or lawful
foundation for this proceeding.
[2:54:24] This hearing must be canceled.
And I ask that these communications I'm
[2:54:28] about to hand
Erica and one copy for the rest of you
[2:54:33] to share, I would like for it to be a
part of the record.
[2:54:54] Hi, I'm Debbie Hall
and I live at 20343 Kenneth Laner Drive
[2:54:58] in Monument.
Good evening and thank you for the
[2:55:02] opportunity to speak. I'm here tonight
as someone who loves this community.
[2:55:07] I've lived here, worked here, and built
relationships here.
[2:55:10] And it matters to me how we treat each
other.
[2:55:13] Right now, I'm seeing division. I'm
seeing people hurting, people
[2:55:17] frustrated,
people forming strong opinions,
[2:55:21] and while concern should absolutely be
taken seriously, I believe we also have
[2:55:25] a responsibility be fair and not rush to
judgment
[2:55:31] before all the facts are known.
We are talking about our neighbors, real
[2:55:35] people with lives, reputations, and
families.
[2:55:39] And one of those people is Roger Mosley.
This man who served our country as
[2:55:43] retired Air Force Colonel and a test
pilot on highly advanced aircraft. Like
[2:55:49] he was the first one that flew the
stealth bomber.
[2:55:52] I don't know if you guys know that. I uh
To me, you're like an astronaut, you
[2:55:57] know? So, anyways, um
[2:56:02] and
that kind of role doesn't happen by
[2:56:05] accident. It requires discipline, sound
judgment, and integrity.
[2:56:10] That doesn't mean anyone is above
accountability, but it does mean we
[2:56:14] should approach a situation thoughtfully
and carefully, not based on assumptions
[2:56:18] or emotion alone.
In the Bible, we are told to love our
[2:56:21] neighbors as ourselves. And to me, that
means something especially in moments
[2:56:25] like this,
when it's easy to divide and harder to
[2:56:29] extend grace.
Loving your neighbor doesn't mean
[2:56:33] ignoring concerns. It means we handle
them with fairness, truth, and respect
[2:56:38] for one another's dignity.
I don't believe any of us here tonight
[2:56:42] has the full picture. That's why it's
important we allow proper process to
[2:56:46] take place and that we don't let the
situation turn into something that
[2:56:50] damages our community beyond repair.
Because when this is over, we're still
[2:56:55] neighbors.
We're still neighbors, you guys.
[2:56:59] And I want to live in a community that
chooses respect over assumptions, truth
[2:57:03] over reaction, and unity over division.
We can disagree and still choose to
[2:57:10] treat each other well.
Thank you.
[2:57:23] My name is Steve Draper and I live
Colorado Springs.
[2:57:28] And this is Beau.
B E A U
[2:57:32] Uh and I'd like to start with Andy
Rooney.
[2:57:35] » Beau does not get an an additional 3
minutes.
[2:57:37] » [laughter]
[2:57:39] » Thank you, Dennis.
Uh I'd like to start with Andy Rooney, a
[2:57:43] satirist of 60 Minutes fame. Do you all
know Andy Rooney?
[2:57:48] Um said
the average dog is nicer than an average
[2:57:54] person.
I'd like all of us to take Rooney's
[2:57:58] comment to heart.
And my Beau, I think, actually is better
[2:58:03] than average.
But I'm biased.
[2:58:07] But as it relates to Roger,
>> [clears throat]
[2:58:10] » uh Roger may not be a Beau,
Beau is better than average.
[2:58:18] But he also is not an attack Doberman
or a vicious junkyard dog
[2:58:24] or a mistreated pit bull ready to attack
at a moment's notice.
[2:58:30] I'd put him somewhere between a poodle
and a German Shepherd.
[2:58:36] As people may know,
uh poodles are known for their
[2:58:40] smartness.
Roger is one of the smartest people I've
[2:58:43] ever known and I've been friends with
many, many smart people throughout my
[2:58:48] life.
So some of my buds are Princeton people,
[2:58:51] Harvard people, etc.
Um but Roger is up there.
[2:58:56] And in Roger's case, just a quick
example, I was lucky enough to be
[2:58:59] invited to uh Roger and Marty's house
uh for a dinner. And even before I went
[2:59:06] to the house,
uh he he was out piddling in an
[2:59:10] Airstream,
you know, the little campers.
[2:59:14] And so I got to go see him out in the
Airstream and I looked at the Airstream
[2:59:19] and there were like electronic wire
harnesses hanging down, little diode
[2:59:27] lighting things everywhere. I I felt
like he was actually trying to make the
[2:59:32] damn thing fly.
And Roger, you should know they need
[2:59:36] wings, right? For that Airstream to I
think so. I may be wrong.
[2:59:42] Uh their house design, unbelievable.
Almost 100% solar energy sustainable,
[2:59:48] » [clears throat]
>> efficient heated floors that sensed
[2:59:51] uh the temperature, beautiful
architecture, incredible lighting,
[2:59:55] amazing amazing art, all designed by
Roger and Marty.
[3:00:02] At the other end,
we have the German Shepherds, as I
[3:00:05] mentioned.
Task
[3:00:08] driven, hard working, high energy,
get things done.
[3:00:13] And yes, they bark a bit.
And I know Roger can bark. I've seen him
[3:00:19] bark at
ex-attorney Krob
[3:00:23] at an important crossroads in the Bucky
saga.
[3:00:26] But Krob literally literally admitted he
had made mistakes.
[3:00:31] But most importantly,
Roger apologized for his attack.
[3:00:38] You know,
2 minutes later.
[3:00:41] But I can't say if Roger ever barked at
me, I likely would have deserved it and
[3:00:46] would have learned from it.
So being the part-time German Shepherd
[3:00:50] that he is, Roger gets things done and
through adversity.
[3:00:55] Roger would never tell you
uh this, but he faced the ultimate
[3:01:00] adverse event in the Vietnam War when
flying a mission to Cambodia,
[3:01:07] he actually was shot. His
and and had had um
[3:01:12] uh had actually had a wound as well.
And he almost didn't make it. He he
[3:01:18] flew over uh this large lake uh
and he literally [clears throat] said
[3:01:22] that he was about to pass out, but he
but he raised his he he raised his hands
[3:01:28] up and was almost flying the plane
underneath his hands.
[3:01:33] But he was about to faint. Long story
short, he made it back to the base.
[3:01:38] Um you know, he's he's simply
uh uh
[3:01:42] is a bonafide hero. So Roger is very
smart,
[3:01:47] very energetic, he gets things done with
a little bark, but certainly no bite.
[3:01:53] He's a hero, at least to me,
and to Bo.
[3:02:18] » Laurel Skau, Woodmoor, Colorado, and um
I also want to talk about Roger, but I
[3:02:25] also want to tell let you know that you
have a gem here in
[3:02:30] Palmer Lake. Um my hiking group on March
30 31st, we hiked with the uh or walked
[3:02:38] the town with the Palmer Lake uh
Historic Society and Vail Museum uh
[3:02:44] cohorts. And I just want to encourage
you all to um
[3:02:49] visit the beautiful little Vail Museum
that's under the library. And uh they
[3:02:55] have walking tours in pamphlet form, and
you can also arrange to have one. And
[3:03:01] now I have a huge appreciation for every
photograph, the Rockland Hotel sign that
[3:03:08] is all around us. So, uh
Palmer Lake is a gem, and uh I love that
[3:03:13] they're part of this whole community.
Uh
[3:03:18] and then I want to add my thoughts on
moving forward with codifying of the
[3:03:23] existing ordinance is a codifying of a
staff hearing ordinance that is
[3:03:28] absolutely seldom used because of the
complexity of becoming a true hearing
[3:03:34] with examination and cross-examination
and all the real-life drama and
[3:03:39] exposure. We are now that would Are we
prepared for that? That is And then the
[3:03:46] necessary time Oh, look at that. Uh
necessary time that is required of your
[3:03:51] new attorney to be putting all of his
time in this for something that the
[3:03:56] genesis of was retaliation specifically
directed towards Roger Mosley.
[3:04:03] Roger began his life of service in 1964
when he took his oath on the on the
[3:04:08] completion of his basic training. He
graduated from the Air Force Academy in
[3:04:12] 1968 having spent time even then in the
area he now calls home here. And and he
[3:04:20] went on to serve in roles overseeing
both people and complex projects for
[3:04:24] more than two decades in the Air Force
followed by another 25 years in
[3:04:29] government service. At one point as a
lieutenant colonel
[3:04:33] Roger was placed in a position
overseeing three colonels. That does not
[3:04:37] happen by accident. It happens because
of demonstrated judgment, capability,
[3:04:43] and an ability to work effectively with
people. That was the stated reason he
[3:04:47] was put in that position. His knowledge
and his skill sets working with other
[3:04:52] people. Of all the course over the
course of a 45-year career managing
[3:04:57] people and complex programs Roger built
something that cannot be created
[3:05:02] overnight. Long-standing professional
relationships and continued respect from
[3:05:07] the people he worked alongside both men
and women.
[3:05:11] People who create toxic environments do
not spend decades in leadership roles,
[3:05:17] do not continue to be trusted with
responsibility, and do not maintain
[3:05:22] their strong relationships long after
their careers are over. Thank you.
[3:05:27] » [applause]
[3:05:35] » Is there any others?
[3:05:39] Is this public comment or we just
referencing Roger or we talking about
[3:05:44] everything?
>> Pardon me? Anything.
[3:05:47] » Anything. Okay.
>> [laughter]
[3:05:49] » Because I would certainly elevate Roger.
Roger, I've been sent some articles
[3:05:54] about you that I didn't know long before
I supported you and um you have my
[3:05:58] utmost admiration. But I will say to all
of you, Mr. Kent, you are a breath of
[3:06:04] fresh air. Mr. Beeson,
>> [applause]
[3:06:07] » I was um very disappointed when you were
not appointed initially when you first
[3:06:13] um attempted to be a board of trustee,
but um I realized why that didn't happen
[3:06:18] because you were so effective on the
planning commission.
[3:06:22] And um
you did an amazing job back when we had
[3:06:26] Buckey's here and I so appreciate your
leadership, your questioning, and I saw
[3:06:32] um
if we're going to talk about outburst, I
[3:06:36] saw outburst that night.
Beth, thank you for stepping up when um
[3:06:42] when it was tough.
And you have um been open to neighbors
[3:06:47] adjacent to Palmer Lake and I appreciate
that.
[3:06:52] John,
thank you. I was there when um we did
[3:06:55] the forum and your dedication to Palmer
Lake, your love of this area, and um I'm
[3:07:02] I'm glad that you're seated here.
Otis, you were a lone warrior
[3:07:07] for a long time and we appreciate your
dedication and your integrity.
[3:07:13] Uh Roger, of course, um thank you for
your service to the United States and um
[3:07:20] continuing to Palmer Lake.
And uh Mr. Beltran, um welcome. I
[3:07:26] appreciate your level-headedness, you
guys ability to work together, not being
[3:07:30] a think group, and um voting
independently. And as a neighbor
[3:07:35] watching intently on what is happening
here,
[3:07:40] I appreciate that.
And anyway,
[3:07:44] I do not think that a hearing is
necessary either. And if we are going to
[3:07:48] have a hearing based on outburst, based
on intimidation, based on intimidation
[3:07:55] not just of us, but like um Mr. Mayor,
respectfully, you treat me and a couple
[3:08:00] people much differently than you treat
others. And um that is not appreciated
[3:08:06] and it's intimidating. And it's
intimidating when the chief of police is
[3:08:10] acting as interim administrator. And
there are many women in here that will
[3:08:15] not come through this town because we do
not feel safe because we see the
[3:08:21] outburst and the um
uh the unevenness of personality and all
[3:08:29] of your chief of police that is acting
as interim administrator and that is in
[3:08:34] a public forum.
And I would not be comfortable. I come
[3:08:38] just inside the city limits just
for my hairdresser. Oh, and Trina.
[3:08:44] » [laughter]
>> But you know, once in a while. And I
[3:08:46] think that should be taken seriously.
And we if we're going to apply the same
[3:08:50] standard, we need to take a look at the
outburst that occur in this meeting and
[3:08:54] how it makes others feel uncomfortable
to come to the town and come to the
[3:08:58] meeting. But again, I'd like to end
positively and you guys are doing a
[3:09:02] great job and we appreciate you. And um
thank you for all the time that it takes
[3:09:09] to do your due diligence and I know that
you all do. Thank you.
[3:09:17] » [applause]
[3:09:24] » Seeing no other public comment,
um
[3:09:27] we'll go on to board reports.
Um Tony?
[3:09:32] Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's come to my
attention that the uh parking lot over
[3:09:37] on the west uh correction, east side of
Palmer Lake here.
[3:09:41] Um
they put in a lab over there that uh is
[3:09:46] obstructing the loading access area and
creating long lines that actually extend
[3:09:50] into the road.
Um when people are standing there to use
[3:09:53] them, I think that is a safety hazard
and they probably could have done it
[3:09:56] better. I know that we don't own the
land, El Paso County does,
[3:10:00] but I'd like to see this addressed
possibly before the next meeting. I'm
[3:10:04] sure we can communicate with El Paso
County and a resolution to maybe have
[3:10:08] them move that single lab into a place
where people don't line up and and are
[3:10:13] actually in the drive-thru area. Thank
you. What What is it that they placed? A
[3:10:18] uh laboratory, one of those mobile
laboratories. I can
[3:10:21] » toilet.
Is that what they call them?
[3:10:23] » Yes. Okay, thank you. I stand corrected.
>> understand what you said, but I call
[3:10:29] them laboratories because, well, you
know.
[3:10:32] Um
just as far as long as he's brought that
[3:10:37] up, Chief, do we have any kind of update
on our negotiations with El Paso County?
[3:10:44] We do not, but it's on the list. It's on
the priority list. All right.
[3:10:49] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You're welcome.
Roger.
[3:10:52] Well, that was kind of hard to take, but
thank you very much. Um
[3:10:56] I just one item for our clerk, uh just
to push a little harder on getting the
[3:11:02] financial review
uh workshop and uh
[3:11:06] we can uh detail what's going to go in
that workshop. But she's aware of it and
[3:11:09] we we're we've been pushing for this for
some time, but
[3:11:13] I guess I need a little bit more
direction because we've had the auditor
[3:11:17] and then we scheduled a workshop or a
meeting with the auditor after and then
[3:11:20] last workshop,
um it sounds like that didn't meet your
[3:11:25] expectations pertaining to fiscal
stewardship.
[3:11:29] Um and so
again, I know you speak to the water
[3:11:33] enterprise. I guess if you could really
line out your questions,
[3:11:37] » let me tell you what they are.
They're the resolution that requires the
[3:11:41] bank statements. We're not doing that.
The idea that we've been told for 3
[3:11:45] years we had one checking account and we
don't. We have at least two.
[3:11:49] That we had one savings account. You
waved a piece of paper in a couple
[3:11:53] meetings ago that showed or maybe it was
Christie, but it showed three or four
[3:11:58] savings account. I would just like to
understand how all that works together,
[3:12:02] but the most important thing is because
we pay for all of our bills with a
[3:12:05] single check and some of those checks
involve both water enterprise
[3:12:10] money and uh general fund money is that
once we do that, what is the mechanism
[3:12:15] for tracking that and getting that
resolved? And you know, these are just
[3:12:20] general questions. They're not hard, but
I would like to have a financial
[3:12:24] workshop that shows how that all works.
Mr. Mosley, with all due respect, can
[3:12:29] you maybe formulate those into an email
and send them to me? I'm not sure that
[3:12:32] will entail a workshop, but I think in a
public I can set it in an agenda item
[3:12:36] and get those answered again. Yeah, I'd
be glad. Thank you. I will do that.
[3:12:43] I just want to add an item.
Um
[3:12:46] probably everybody knows that Buc-ee's
made the news recently.
[3:12:52] And one of my concerns is, you know, the
citizens probably like voted
[3:12:57] overwhelmingly against Buc-ee's.
And it looks like they're still moving
[3:13:01] forward through El Paso County.
Uh the town of Monument has taken a look
[3:13:05] at what the impact that's going to be on
their town.
[3:13:08] Uh there are some considerations we need
to consider. Public safety,
[3:13:13] water, economic, property values, loss
of our dark sky.
[3:13:17] And at some point I'd like the our board
to get together and figure out and work
[3:13:23] with this town staff and
make some assessments of if it does
[3:13:27] come, which it appears it might happen,
what's the impact in Palmer Lake?
[3:13:33] And it's not something immediate, but
it's something that we I think we should
[3:13:37] work on.
[3:13:41] I believe he's asking us to add that to
the list.
[3:13:45] Um I will
again, I'll definitely add it to the
[3:13:49] list just to bring it to the board's
attention. We have special counsel
[3:13:52] advising us on that matter fully before
we can take any type of I mean, if if
[3:13:57] Yeah, okay.
Please assist cuz I know that
[3:14:02] the town staff have some some state
water
[3:14:05] and
public works, particularly fire and
[3:14:08] public safety is is concerned like
case of wildfire, how's that going to
[3:14:13] impact our evacuation cuz there's
27,000 cars on
[3:14:18] you know, county line road.
[3:14:21] You're asking for a resource impact
study. Okay.
[3:14:27] I have nothing for tonight. Good.
Um
[3:14:33] Uh as I mentioned last meeting, I
uh attended the PPRBD meeting uh last
[3:14:39] Wednesday, not yesterday, but a week
ago.
[3:14:42] And uh
they have been
[3:14:46] um
they're one of the best in the state. I
[3:14:50] I I'm a general contractor. I work
around the state. I have had to deal
[3:14:54] with building departments in
Loveland, Fort Collins, Aurora, Green
[3:15:00] Mountain Village, Centennial, Douglas
County, and um
[3:15:06] our El Paso County Regional Building
Department is one of the best in the
[3:15:11] state. So, just wanted to
give them kudos publicly.
[3:15:18] Uh just want to amplify the Palmer Lake
open house celebration tomorrow.
[3:15:22] Uh Palmer Lake Library will have lawn
games and so on on the green tomorrow.
[3:15:27] Um
you know, encourage everybody to attend
[3:15:29] if you can. You could also have an
opportunity to win a $75 gift card to
[3:15:33] Culver's.
[3:15:36] Um just two things. Um I attended
uh the historical society, and I don't
[3:15:42] want to get the title wrong, so um it
was an excellent
[3:15:47] presentation on how the expeditions of
Pike, Long, and the Spanish put Colorado
[3:15:53] on the map. It was riveting and was
given by Mr. Wesley Brown right here. I
[3:15:57] encourage everyone to go to the
historical society meetings. Get there
[3:16:01] early. This place was packed.
And now I have an agenda item that I'd
[3:16:04] like to add
a discussion and possible direction
[3:16:09] to uh set firm priority lists
uh given
[3:16:14] uh with our attorney relative to this
priority list that was given to us
[3:16:18] tonight. What I'm asking for is that we
sort this out during next meeting, and
[3:16:24] we sort it out in a final final matter,
1 through
[3:16:30] 33, just so we can work together and get
it done next meeting, so it doesn't drag
[3:16:34] on.
Do I have a second?
[3:16:37] No second?
I don't know that it needs to be a
[3:16:39] motion. So, uh it's we've given you
you've given uh staff uh direction to
[3:16:47] put it on next month's job agenda. Okay,
I was just
[3:16:50] I'm confused because
staff reports require a second, so I'm
[3:16:54] just trying to keep up.
I don't know what you're talking about,
[3:16:58] personally.
Dennis, if if we're going to accept that
[3:17:02] task, you think maybe we could start the
meeting a little earlier?
[3:17:08] » Well, I don't know um Up to you.
Yeah, uh do we have a workshop next uh
[3:17:16] do we have a workshop before next
meeting? So, no.
[3:17:19] Thank you.
I I will make a suggestion, if you'll
[3:17:23] let me, Mayor. Sure. I I think that
staff could probably work with the
[3:17:27] attorney and give you perhaps the top
five
[3:17:30] critical things that need to be
addressed both from
[3:17:35] the residents perspective and the
attorneys perspective and the towns
[3:17:38] perspective. I think there are probably
that many
[3:17:42] that we could put on the top
that need to be addressed more urgently
[3:17:47] than perhaps the other number ones.
I think that helps the process.
[3:17:51] » that that's a good start and I think
that trying to address all 33 or
[3:17:57] whatever
um
[3:17:59] will tie us into knots actually. If we
can identify the top five or six
[3:18:05] and go with that um I think that that's
going to be a great start. I concur.
[3:18:10] Thank you, Chief.
[3:18:13] Would it would it make sense for the
board members to send in their top five
[3:18:17] choices?
Would that help anything? You can do
[3:18:20] more. Uh
yeah, and
[3:18:23] just just as my first impression is that
they've got all the information we
[3:18:27] don't.
>> And I'll I'll take whatever input you'd
[3:18:29] like to provide, but
the complexity of some of the land use
[3:18:33] issues you may not know about on the
back end, that's all. Just there some of
[3:18:37] them are more critical than others.
Very good.
[3:18:41] Um
[3:18:44] our next meeting will be the
What is it the Is it the
[3:18:49] 15th of May? Is that correct?
[3:18:54] 14th May
Yeah.
[3:18:59] So um
[3:19:03] and we've already discussed future
items, so
[3:19:06] uh we're going to convene to an
executive session for the purpose
[3:19:09] pursuant to CRS
[3:19:14] in order to discuss a private property
offer to purchase certain town owned
[3:19:19] property known as the El Faroque
property. Actually, that's uh a little
[3:19:23] bit of a misnomer. It's portion of the
Elephant Rock property.
[3:19:28] And to receive legal advice on this
offer from the town attorney and other
[3:19:31] advice from the from town engaged
realtor, Greg Kaufman.
[3:19:38] Uh once we um
are done with that executive session, we
[3:19:42] will reconvene to open session. In the
meantime, we have to ask the public to
[3:19:47] leave.
Thank you for your participation.
[3:19:52] We will recess for 10 minutes prior to
going into executive session. Executive
[3:19:57] session, I have a second. You got a
second.
[3:20:17] Okay, thanks.
[3:20:23] May I have
May I have quiet, please?
[3:20:45] So, um
I failed to make a motion to move into
[3:20:50] executive session. Is that correct?
So, I so move. Do I have a second?
[3:20:55] » Second.
So, I have a motion and a second to move
[3:20:59] into executive session. All in favor
>> Mr. Mayor, I You need to read the script
[3:21:06] and cite the CRS statute. I already did
that.
[3:21:09] » Did you? Okay. Yes, I did.
>> Okay.
[3:21:11] Yes, I did.
Uh
[3:21:14] opposed? There's none, opposed, so it uh
motion passes. We're moving into
[3:21:19] executive session. Okay, and it's my
opinion that this does not need to be
[3:21:23] recorded because it'll be
attorney-client privileged. Very good.
[3:21:26] » Okay.
Do we leave executive
[3:21:30] Sorry.
That's fine.
[3:21:32] I'll make a motion to come out of
executive session, return to regular
[3:21:35] session.
Second.
[3:21:37] All in favor? Aye.
No opposed. We're out of executive
[3:21:42] session.
So, Mike, in response to your question,
[3:21:47] Thank you. um
uh
[3:21:50] Susan Miner did
uh
[3:21:56] complete her task and present
uh
[3:22:00] uh that 100 and what did she say?
140-page
[3:22:04] um
set of proposals for the Elephant Rock
[3:22:08] property,
uh but it was all rejected by the then
[3:22:13] board
>> Oh. in terms of
[3:22:15] uh
uh
[3:22:18] you know, there was mostly about the
cabins at the time,
[3:22:22] and uh it was mostly about
uh
[3:22:26] getting grants uh for and again, this
was we were still going to be the
[3:22:31] landlord
and not sell. We were going to be
[3:22:34] leasing.
And so, there was it wasn't necessarily
[3:22:39] solid ground on which to move forward.
And uh
[3:22:44] if you recall, we voted
something like six times
[3:22:49] to tear down those cabins, and it kept
coming back up and coming back up
[3:22:54] that we shouldn't do it and shouldn't do
it, and we we were gracious and listened
[3:22:58] to the objections,
but every time the vote happened,
[3:23:03] uh and eventually
uh
[3:23:05] was settled that those cabins came down,
and therefore, most of her presentation
[3:23:10] is moot in regards to that.
Um
[3:23:14] and um
but I heard that presentation did
[3:23:19] did include the public safety
uh acreage set aside. It did include the
[3:23:26] eco spa. It did include parks and
things of that sort. So,
[3:23:32] um
[3:23:34] and I just would remind all of us that
yes, there was uh we do have master
[3:23:40] plans and there was that
specific master plan for Elephant Rock,
[3:23:45] but master plans are a guide and we are
not obligated to
[3:23:51] um I mean, we need to be
um circumspect about what is in them and
[3:23:57] and take those things fully into
consideration, but it's not
[3:24:02] code that we have to follow. You know,
we have the option of
[3:24:08] going outside coloring outside the
lines, if you will. Thank you very much,
[3:24:11] Peter. I was I was on the advisory
committee. I worked with Susan on that.
[3:24:16] Yeah.
And it's kind of a odd it's new point
[3:24:20] what Susan bringing up because like you
said, the cabins were torn down and made
[3:24:25] into an open space.
Uh there's discussion about the ball
[3:24:29] baseball field becoming a a soccer field
or something like that.
[3:24:33] And that's been tabled and
and Reed Weeks got involved and the
[3:24:38] parks came up with a scheme
of modifying the back buildings and
[3:24:43] it first started out where
uh
[3:24:46] there were two
potential buyers back in the day. One to
[3:24:51] take over the whole Elephant Rock
property.
[3:24:53] » Actually, that was still in the under a
lease situation.
[3:24:56] » Yeah, lease for 15 years, but they ran
into financing problems cuz if you can't
[3:25:02] own the properties, it's tough to get
financing.
[3:25:05] And then Cabrillo, which is a restaurant
in Springs, was going to take over the
[3:25:11] main main building and make it into a
restaurant wedding venue type of thing.
[3:25:16] And
they went away.
[3:25:19] And then
the advisory committee came in and we
[3:25:22] tried to we came up with some ideas on
how to make use of all the buildings and
[3:25:28] as as Dennis mentioned, you know, like
the cabins that were
[3:25:33] back and forth between there was the
arts group that wanted to make them into
[3:25:37] artist centers and
and then the Rollins offered to take
[3:25:42] over the cabins and
but then we got into asbestos mitigation
[3:25:47] battles.
And I think the main building has the
[3:25:50] same issue of asbestos in there, so
I'm kind of curious on the buyers for
[3:25:57] the main building, which is that lot,
too.
[3:26:00] is what they plan to do with that. And
And I know when it was Tim and Amy got
[3:26:06] involved, it became kind of
before Glenn took over and
[3:26:11] they made some stipulations like I think
with KCRE they were
[3:26:16] » [clears throat]
>> a $50,000 commission provided they meet
[3:26:19] this criteria. Right. That the town gets
at least a half a million dollars in
[3:26:24] money somehow.
And the goal was not to have a church or
[3:26:29] whatnot because there's no property
taxes or
[3:26:32] sales tax. It's it's kind of a
it's a downer if you put a church in
[3:26:36] there or a non-profit.
So they want to make a
[3:26:40] there's some talk about making a
boutique hotel,
[3:26:44] but
I'm you know, my biggest concern is that
[3:26:47] building is
how many years now? It's four or five
[3:26:51] years now since since we got it and
Well, it was in disrepair when it was
[3:26:56] gifted to the town in the first place,
so
[3:26:58] » Yeah, the roof has holes went and Yeah.
I think when we toured it one time we
[3:27:03] there's a I think a couple pheasants
running around in there.
[3:27:08] There's also some things with that
property that we need to keep in mind
[3:27:11] moving forward and that's the setback
off of 105. It's a very large It's a I
[3:27:16] think it's a 200-ft setback off the off
of 105. So, when you talk about when you
[3:27:21] go in the gate and off to the right
where you would put a public safety
[3:27:24] building, if you can imagine that 200 ft
off the roadway. Now, we might have to
[3:27:29] ask ourselves for a variance
[clears throat]
[3:27:32] to to change that, but you're you're
pushing everything back so far off the
[3:27:35] road that those parcels when they get We
need to be aware that we subdivide that.
[3:27:39] » Whose whose setback is that? That's the
setback off of 105 in the code. In our
[3:27:44] code or in the state's code?
>> our code.
[3:27:47] Um personally, I think that that should
be
[3:27:50] uh looked at very seriously.
>> I I don't disagree, but it's just
[3:27:53] something we want to keep in mind as
we're moving forward. Ask somebody in
[3:27:56] the code. It's in the master plan. Yeah,
uh but I'll I'll look and see. I thought
[3:28:00] it was in code when I looked at it, but
maybe it wasn't. No, Glenn, you're
[3:28:02] correct cuz when I was on planning we
voted I didn't want 200, but the
[3:28:06] majority wanted 200.
>> Yeah, it's it's the scenic byway thing
[3:28:09] in the master plan.
But, it's also Yeah, we just need to be
[3:28:12] aware of that as long as we go. Okay.
And Glenn, it's going to take forever to
[3:28:16] get 105 to have deceleration lanes,
traffic counts.
[3:28:19] » It is. So, that's going to be huge.
It is. Yeah. Well, there
[3:28:25] Well, there It's already in the meeting.
>> depending on how much traffic you see.
[3:28:28] If it's over 100 cars
or something like that, then you
[3:28:31] wouldn't have to make it It is, but I do
remember
[3:28:35] the conversation where we are already in
a we're already in a place where there
[3:28:39] should be a deceleration lane. So, any
development whatsoever is going to
[3:28:43] require it.
Um
[3:28:45] how what that looks like, who pays for
it in the long run, and all that's
[3:28:49] you know, whether you could ask CDOT to
hold off on that while you're developing
[3:28:52] it and then everybody I don't know. I
have no idea what's going to happen with
[3:28:55] that.
But, it's we're already there.
[3:28:58] I mean you could put a
phone booth in there you're going to
[3:29:01] need a deceleration lane. Yes, cuz it's
also too kind of pretty close to mission
[3:29:05] training. Yeah, it is. Yeah. They're
reluctant to have two deceleration
[3:29:09] lanes.
>> they are.
[3:29:16] I believe that we need a motion to
adjourn.
[3:29:20] Unless there's any other
comments.
[3:29:24] You mean so what?
So what?
[3:29:27] Yes. Is it Is it possible for them for
Is it Kay
[3:29:31] Casey? Casey O'Reilly. Yeah, Casey
O'Reilly I mean the gentleman's name.
[3:29:36] Greg Kaufman. Oh, Greg Kaufman.
Give us some idea of who the potential
[3:29:40] buyers are.
I know some some of them there was NDAs.
[3:29:45] Oh, okay.
[3:29:48] It's just kind of a curiosity you know.
We'll find out soon enough actually, I
[3:29:52] think.
[3:30:06] I think it would help
make it a selling point.
[3:30:10] These people are
touchy about Elephant Rock.
[3:30:17] Yeah, it's kind of sad now we're six
votes to turn down the cabins.
[3:30:25] They were trying to make it an art an
art district. Yeah.
[3:30:28] And then you have I was wondering
[clears throat] if we resolved things
[3:30:31] with three degrees cuz he's upset
because
[3:30:34] he throws this resolution says he's get
full control of these parks and trails
[3:30:39] and Yeah, well.
Uh another issue for another day and I
[3:30:44] move to adjourn this meeting. Second.
All in favor. I. Opposed.
[3:30:49] » I.
[3:30:51] No No opposition, we are adjourned.