[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.

Board of Trustees Special & Regular Meeting 04.23.26

Transcript