Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 2026-01-27Town ofEstes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 27, 2026 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 27th day of January, 2026. Present: Gary Hall, Mayor Marie Cenac, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Bill Brown Kirby Hazelton Frank Lancaster Mark Igel CindyYounglund Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator Jason Damweber, Deputy Town Administrator Dan Kramer, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA APPROVAL. It was moved and seconded (Lancaster/Cenac) to approve the Agenda with Action Items 4 and 5 to be heard prior to Action Items 1, 2 and 3, and it passed with Mayor Hall voting "No". PUBLIC COMMENTS. Dan Scace/Town resident requested the Town Board consider during deliberations the desires of the local citizens, heed the recommendations of the experts regarding the environment and wildlife, respect existing zoning, carefully follow all legal and ethical rules, and provide reasons for your decisions. Judith Smith/Town resident commented on the processes she and her husband used in reviewing 15 communities before choosing Estes Park, and noted that anyone from anywhere could address the Town Board publicly on the record and the Board listens and cares. John Guffey/Town resident spoke to the current events in the country and specifically in Minnesota which impact everyone, including Estes Park. He commented on the need to admonish the events that have occurred. He requested communication from the Board to encourage healing and stop the divisiveness. John Smith/County resident spoke to the need for the Estes Park Housing Authority to slow down the buying and development of property, noting they do not have guidelines. He stated there are concerns the Authority has been operating outside of what the citizens voted for, and that their development of housing should be placed on hold. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Board comments were heard and have been summarized: attended the Habitat for Humanity home dedication and celebrated with the family; attended the Visit Estes Park meeting noting the new CEO Sarah Leonard would host a roundtable to engage with the community, stakeholder events to be held, lodging taxes were up 5% in November 2025, and the board supported a factual letter to be sent on behalf of the CEO to the federal delegation noting the possible impacts the new fee schedule for the park may have on visitation; attended the First Peoples Festival; noted the Opioid Abatement Council has received $2.60 million in settlement fund to be allocated to address the drugs impact on communities; thanked Restorative Justice for the community conversations on the update Board of Trustees - January 27,2026 - Page 2 to the Estes Park Development Code; Restorative Justice has discussed an assessment of the facilitators, and the organization has planned a retreat to determine if the community's needs are being met; recent Trustee Talk discussion included the impacts of Ballot Question 300; attended the Wildfire Town Hall hosted by Larimer County Commissioner Shadduck-McNaIly; and attended Skijor which was well attended. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Policy Governance Monitorina Report - Policy 3.3. Town Administrator Machalek stated compliance with the policy. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills 2. Town Board Meeting and Study Session Minutes dated January 13,2026 3. Estes Park Planning Commission Minutes dated December 16, 2025 (acknowledgment only) 4. Resolution 04-26 Contract with Maddison Mechanical, Inc for On-Call Plumbing Services up to $100,000, Budgeted (Continued from January 13, 2026) 5. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Report Trustee Igel requested the removal of Consent Item #4. It was moved and seconded (IgelA^ounglund) to approve the Consent Agenda Items 1-3 and 5, and it passed unanimously. Consent Item #4 - Resolution 04-26 Contract with Maddison Mechanical. Inc for On- Call Plumbing Services. Trustee Igel questioned the Town's process and the performance criteria used to review the contract and execute a renewal of the contract. Director Fetherston commented the performance of the contractor was discussed by staff and whether there had been any issues in the past year for the on-call contractor. Trustee Igel noted the importance of establishing a matrix to evaluate the services provided. Town Administrator Machalek noted the value of further conversations with the Board to outline a process, tiers, thresholds, etc. It was moved and seconded (Igel/Brown) to approve the Consent Agenda Item #4 - Resolution 04-26, and it passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Action Items: A. ORDINANCE 03-26 REZONING 179 STANLEY CIRCLE DRIVE FROM E (ESTATE) TO RM (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORIPiT/APPLICANT. Mayor Hall opened the public hearing. Town Clerk Williamson stated a protest under 31-23-305 CRS was filed and found sufficient which requires two thirds vote to approve the ordinance. Senior Planner Hombeck reviewed an application submitted by the Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) on behalf of the property owner, the Town of Estes Park, to rezone a 1.4-acre property containing a single-family home from E (Estate) to RM (Multi-Family Residential) to create 15 lots at approximately 0.25 acres per townhome to create employee housing intended for Town of Estes Park employees. The site does not have any mapped hazard areas (flood, fire, and geologic) nor platted within any mapped important wildlife habitat areas per the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. He noted the application complies with the relevant standards and criteria set forth in the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC), including addressing changes in conditions in the area affected, noting the area was designated for mixed residential use in the updated 2022 Comprehensive Plan and the construction of the Mountain Wood Townhomes in 2019 located southeast of the site; staff waived the requirement for a development plan in-lieu of a conceptual site plan; and the proposal addresses housing needs through the creation of 12 new deed restricted workforce housing units that are in alignment with the current height, scale, mass and bulk within the area, and vehicular traffic would be in character with the existing conditions. It was further outlined the application was received January 2025 prior to the approval of Board of Trustees - January 27,2026 - Page 3 Ordinance 11-25 at the 2025 November Coordinated Election through Ballot Question 300. The ballot question does not state whether or not it applies to applications already received and under review, and the applicant has not submitted written approval of the application by the neighboring property owners in accordance with the ballot language. The Estes Park Planning Commission recommended the rezoning unanimously at their December 16, 2025 meeting. Steve Lane/Basis Architecture reviewed the concept plan that was submitted with the application for rezoning which was developed taking into account feedback received at the neighborhood meeting to address parking, height, storage, etc. A Development Plan was submitted in January 2025 and through comments with staff the units were reduced from 15 to 12 units to preserve some trees on the property. This property would allow 16 units per the code; however, EPHA has asked for only 12. He noted that if the rezoning received approval, the concept plan would then be fully engineered and brought back to the Estes Park Planning Commission for their full review. Peter Levine/EPHA Director of Real Estate Development noted the need for additional affordable housing to address a loss of approximately 10% of working age adults with a third of workers now commuting into Estes Park, a decrease in school enrollment by approximately a third, retirees have almost doubled, and an increase in housing costs. In order to preserve the community more cost-effective housing and/or higher wages for employees would be required. He noted the townhome development meets the mixed-use classification identified in the Comprehensive Plan, provides an infill transitional housing development, and would be well located near major roadways, within walking distance to downtown. Jim Martell/EPHA legal counsel noted concerns with the application of Ordinance 11-25 to the application based on Article II, Section 1 1 of the Colorado Constitution that prohibits any law impairing the obligation of the contract or retrospective in their operation. He stated the application was filed in January 2025 and the ordinance was approved in November 2025, therefore, the new requirements of the ordinance are being applied retrospectively. The ordinance did not clearly establish that it would apply to previously submitted applications prior to its approval in November 2025. He further commented the ordinance requires the Town to delegate its administrative authority, the decision on the rezoning, in violation of due process and numerous Supreme Court cases. Those speaking in opposition to the of the rezoning included Diana Ernst/Town resident, Ray Sahm/Town resident, Rick Ralph/Town resident, Richard Zuba/Town resident and Joan Hooper/County resident. Comments in opposition included the negative impact on the neighborhood; increased parking issues due to the elimination by the State on the number of individuals that may reside in a unit; the proposed 12-unit development does not contain green space for children to play; noted the applicant did not comply with Ordinance 11-25; and the application does not meet the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) 3.3.D. Board comments and questions were heard and summarized: noted the application meets the rezoning criteria outlined in the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) and the application would be compatible with the area, providing transitional housing between the commercial uses and single-family residential uses; stated the applicant has not met the requirements of Ordinance 11-25 passed by the voters through Ballot Question 300; commented the community has expressed through the conversations on the update to the EPDC the desire for infill projects rather than sprawl; questioned if the property could be rezoned and then sold; and commented on the possibility of transferring the property and providing Town funds to the EPHA to develop the property. Mayor Hall closed the public hearing. After further conversation, it was moved and seconded (Igel/) to deny Ordinance 03-26, and the motion lacked a second. Board of Trustees - January 27,2026 - Page 4 It was moved and seconded (Brown/Younglund) to approve Resolution 07-26 to deny the application for failure to meet the requirements of Ballot Question 300, and it passed with Trustee Igel voting "No". B. ORDINANCE 04-26, REZONING 440 VALLEY ROAD FROM RM (MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO A-1 (ACCOMMODATIONS, LOW-INTENSITY). DENICE D. BORDA, BRIAN DELANEY, DANA D. BURKE/OWNERS. Planner Washam reviewed the application to rezone a property containing a single-family home and a triplex used as accommodations and licensed as three (3) separate vacation home licenses from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low-lntensity) zoning to allow for a reclassification to "Resort Lodge". The applicant contends the A-1 zoning classification more accurately reflects their "small lodge" business model and would allow for a single accommodations license to be issues rather than individual vacation home licenses and corresponding workforce housing regulatory fees. The change in classification would not create a non-conforming use, however, redevelopment would limit the property to up to three (3) units on the 0.8-acre property. She noted the application complies with the relevant standards and criteria set forth in the EPDC including addressing changes in conditions in the area affected, noting a rezoning in 2011 for Fall River Lodge from CO (Commercial Outlying) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low Intensity) to convert a small residential building into a small resort lodge; no new development has been proposed; the 2022 Comprehensive Plan outlines the future land use in this area as "Suburban Estate", which consists of low to medium density single-family residential development, and would not conflict with the rezoning request; noted the rezoning request would be consistent with the surrounding accommodations corridor, and compatible with the neighborhood use; and adequate public services already exist with the current use. It was further outlined the uncertainty on how the applicants and staff should interpret the requirements of Ordinance 11-25 approved at the 2025 November Coordinated Election through the passage of Ballot Question 300. The application was submitted on November 25, 2025 without the submittal of written approval by the neighboring property owners as outlined in Ordinance 11-25. The Estes Park Planning Commission unanimously recommended the rezoning request. Donald Borda and Denise Borda/Applicants provided an overview of the property purchased in 1986 located on Business Hwy 34 between two churches and across the highway from the Fall River Lodge. They reviewed the down zoning from commercial (CO - Commercial Outlying) to residential (E-1 - Estate 1-acre) that took place in 2000 even though there were multiple structures on the property, and the corrective zoning in 2010 that rezoned the property from E-1 (Estate 1-acre) to RM (Multi-family Residential). They reviewed the classification of the property throughout the years noting the discrepancies from being listed as studio units, a five-plex, and later noted as a triplex. The property has been operated throughout the years as an accommodation property with an onsite manager, however, due to the current zoning of RM are licensed as three individual vacation homes subject to the fees, including the workforce housing regulatory linkage fee. They stated the application was submitted in October 2025 prior to the approval of Ordinance 11-25 requiring written approval of the neighbors as outlined in the ordinance. They requested approval of the application to allow for low intensity accommodation zoning and operation of the small family business. Chris Wood/470 Valley Road stated if you are operating an accommodation business the owners would incur commercial property taxes or pay the workforce housing regulatory linkage fee. He stated concern with short term rentals and their impact on the community including the cost of living and the lack of workforce housing. Town Board comments were heard and have been summarized: it was noted that the use on the property fits with the "Resort Lodge" classification; concern was raised on creating a non-conforming lot with the rezoning; recognized the number of issues with the zoning over the years on this property as well as other building and assessor issues; Ordinance 1 1-25 (Ballot Question 300) requires approval by Board of Trustees - January 27,2026 - Page 5 the neighboring property owners and this application has not obtained the required approval; and it was stated the rezoning would likely have been approved if it were not for the approval of Ballot Question 300. Mayor Hall closed the public hearing. After further conversation, it was moved and seconded (Younglund/Cenac) to approve Resolution 12-26 to deny the application for failure to meet the requirements of Ballot Question 300,and it passed unanimously. It was moved and seconded (Hazelton/Brown) to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m., and the motion passed with Mayor Pro Tem Cenac and Trustee Igel voting "No". Mayor Hall called a break at 9:50 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 9:58 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUT|0?L03-26 CONTRACTLRENEWAL WITH THE CAR PARK FOR 2026 PARKING MANAGEMENT SERVICES. The item was continued at the January 13, 2026 meeting for further review and consideration. Manager Klein stated additional information was provided to the Board as requested to include the KPI score sheets for The Car Park and additional parking permit survey information including all comments. The contract approved through Resolution 07-25 outlined a contract that could be renewed for up to four (4) additional years. The 2026 renewal contract increased to $429,955.12 to support the downtown paid parking management program. Trustee Igel questioned how the Town evaluates the renewal of contracts, especially those with great consequence to the community, and noted concern that other options, including whether or not paid parking continues to be the right approach, have not been reviewed. He commented the evaluation should assess if the contractor met the requirements of the contract, and the evaluation provided does not provide that information. Mayor Pro Tem Cenac agreed that paid parking should be re-evaluated now that traffic has been improved with the downtown loop. Other Trustees noted support for the evaluation completed by staff; the Board should continue to support policy governance and staff's role in such; and encouraged staff to address the issues outlined in the comments related to the online employee convenience permit process. After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Younglund/Hazelton) to approve Resolution 03-26, and it passed with Mayor Pro Tem Cenac and Trustee Igel voting "No". 2. RESOLUTION 10-26 CONTRACT WITH EARLY^HILDHOQD COUNCIL OF LARIMER COUNTY (ECCLC) FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTES VALLEY CHILDCARE FUND. Manager Bangs presented the renewal of the service agreement with the ECCLA for the administration of the middle-income childcare tuition assistance program through the Estes Valley Childcare fund. During the inaugural school year, it is anticipated $25,000 of the $150,000 would be utilized to provide support to six (6) children enrolled, with four (4) additional applications under review. Any unused funds would be rolled over and the Town would fund ECCLC for a total of $150,000. Staff recommended renewal of the contract with no changes to the program administration in 2026. The passage of the Larimer County 1B funding for childcare anticipates $28 million in annual sales tax revenue that may provide funding for this program through countywide programs in future years. After further conversation, it was moved and seconded (Hazelton/Cenac) to approve Resolution 10-26, and it passed unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION 09-26 DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND ESTABLISH THE PROCESS TO FILL THE VACANCY, Town Clerk Williamson presented the resolution to formally acknowledge the resignation of Trustee Younglund effective March 24, 2026. She noted state statute 31-4-303 CRS outlines the process to fill a vacancy by either appointment by the Town Board within 60 days of a resignation or setting an election to fill the vacancy. The statute does not Board of Trustees - January 27,2026 - Page 6 take into consideration a resignation that occurs during a normal municipal election; however, staff recommended the Board establish the candidate receiving the fourth highest votes be elected to the two (2) year term to complete Trustee Younglund's term, which meets the intent of the statute and provides the voters the ability to determine who fills the vacant seat. It was moved and seconded (Igel/Cenac) to approve Resolution 09-26, and it passed unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE 05-26 ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. COLORADO, ELKHORN LODGE PHASE II ANNEXATION, AND APPROVING AN ASSOCIATED ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. Mayor Hall opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Hombeck reviewed the annexation petition which was first referred to the Town Board at the March 25, 2025 meeting and garnered approvals through the process that included finding the petition in substantial compliance and that the property was eligible for annexation as outlined in the state statutes. The 40-acre undeveloped property zoned within the Larimer County zoning as 'EV RE' (Estes Valley Rural Estate) lies southwest of the historic Elkhorn Lodge under the same ownership as the lodge property. The current zoning would allow a maximum density of one (1) unit per two in half (2.5) acres. A concept plan depicts two (2) 110-room hotels, 55-65 treehouse cabins and a public road on the requested property and proposed establishment of 'A' (Accommodations/Highway Corridor) zoning. An associated annexation agreement has been developed to require all future development to be consistent with the concept plan. Future development would also be subject to the ridgeline protection standards due to the slopes on the property ranging from 20 to 30 percent. The site sits within two mapped hazard areas: wildfire and geologic, therefore, requiring mitigation plans for both. The proposed annexation agreement contains a minimum 80-foot-wide buffer along the perimeter of the site, to remain natural, free of any buildings or parking lots, to provide movement corridors for wildlife as outlined by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and further analysis on the impact to wildlife by a qualified expert be conducted with a development plan to ensure best practices as it relates to wildlife due to the size of the parcel and proximity to Rocky Mountain National Park. The future land use map within the Comprehensive Plan designated the property as low-density accommodations. Staff noted the tree house cabins would be consistent with the vision; however, the proposed hotels would be a higher intensity use than envisioned for the property. It was further outlined that 'A-1' zoning would allow a maximum of 88 accommodation units while 'A' would permit approximately 530 units. The proposed annexation agreement would limit future development to a maximum of 290 accommodation units and 25 employee housing units. The property can be served by the local utilities, fire and police with upgrades and fees as needed to the systems. The Fire District would support a connection between Elkhorn Avenue and Moraine Avenue. The concept plan depicted a public road connection from Elm Road through the site to Old Ranger Drive near the intersection with West Elkhorn Avenue. The public road connection through the site has been a result of significant dialogue between the Town and the applicant to provide a connection between Moraine Avenue and West Elkhorn for safety, emergency response and evacuation serving the wider community during future emergency events. The annexation agreement contains a requirement of trail improvements and a corresponding public access easement, to include alignment and signage to discourage access to the National Park and to adjacent properties. Staff noted the review of the annexation remains a discretionary act of the Town Board with no direct standards or guidance in the Development Code or Comprehensive Plan. The Town's Annexation Policy outlines the consideration of the natural environment, built environment, economy, housing, and transportation and infrastructure. The annexation would allow the Town to control the development of the property; the annexation agreement would require higher development standards and additional measures to mitigate development impacts; new development would generate additional sales, lodging and property tax revenues; and development would facilitate infrastructure improvements. Justin Mabey/Applicant stated they would not move forward with the annexation if the establishment of zoning to 'A' does not receive approval. He noted the Board and the public have heard the plans for the area in previous presentations and would reserve his comments for the zoning discussion. Board of Trustees - January 27,2026 - Page 7 Those speaking in opposition to the annexation included Gina Stine/County resident, Gerald McDorman/County resident, Velina Davidson/County resident, Bill Brown/County resident, Richard Morrison/County resident, and Peter Arcidiacono/County resident stating concern with a high-density development on the unaltered 40 acres, noted inconsistencies with the current Larimer County zoning, impacts to wildlife and the environment, increase in wildfire risk, concern with congestion, the fact there are current vacancies in the lodging stock and more lodging would not create more demand, development would create low-wage hospitality jobs rather than workforce housing, and concern profits would leave the community. Those speaking also commented and submitted petitions signed by approximately 500. Those speaking in favor of the annexation included John Smith/County resident and Judy Smith/Town resident stating the development of the property if annexed would be controlled by the Town rather than the County Commissioners. The current owners have rescued the Elkhorn Lodge and restored the property. Jan Romero/Galloway and Company, LLC stated the application was submitted a year ago and throughout the hearing process the guidelines associated with the annexation process have been exceeded. He commented there have been multiple community engagement opportunities throughout the process, open houses, and preservation of the property. He noted the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the project. The Colorado Preservation and Corporation have commended the developer for their preservation of the Elkhorn Lodge. The developer has not wanted the road through the property to be a public road; however, they have included the public roadway as requested by the Town. The land can be developed in a number of ways through a partnership with the developer. Matt Lowder and Justin Mabey/developers reiterated their commitment to preserving the historic lodge and to bring new amenities to the property, while working with the community and the Town to support the community through months of negotiations. Town Board comments were heard and summarized: concerns were heard on the through roadway from Elkhorn to Moraine; the approval of the annexation and associated agreement would in effect approve the 'A' zoning as the concept plan and agreement are based on establishing the zoning, however, it was noted the annexation agreement would establish density and not zoning; concerned the annexation and zoning cannot be separated and 'A' zoning would be too high for this area; annexation of the property would provide the Town with the authority to develop the property in the best interest of the Town rather than the County; questioned if Ballot Question 300, Ordinance 11-25, would apply to the establishment of zoning, and therefore, not allow the Board to annex and establish zoning for the property, however Town Attorney Kramer commented the ordinance specifically addressed rezoning and not the establishment of zoning; commented the developers are not requesting to develop the property to the maximum density allowed by the requested 'A' zoning and have agreed to mitigate issues and concerns through the proposed agreement; and reiterated the importance of the Town overseeing the development of the property through the Town's Development Code. Mayor Hall closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (BrownA'ounglund) to approve Ordinance 05-26, and it passed unanimously. It was moved and second (HazeltonA^ounglund) to extend the meeting past 11:00 p.m. to complete the agenda and it passed with Mayor Pro Tem Cenac and Trustee Igel voting "No". 5. ORDINANCE 06-26 ESTABLISHING ZONING OF THE ELKHORN LODGE PHASE II ANNEXATION. Mayor Hall opened the public hearing. Town Clerk Williamson stated a protest under 31-23-305 CRS was filed and found sufficient which requires two thirds vote to approve the ordinance. Senior Planner Hornbeck stated the applicant has requested 'A' Accommodations/Highway Corridor zoning for the 40-acre property as noted in the annexation discussion. He commented there are no review criteria established in the EPDC for the establishment of zoning; however, the Town Board could use the rezoning criteria as a guide. The Estes Park Planning Board of Trustees - January 27,2026 - Page 8 Commission considered the zoning at their November 18, 2025 meeting and voted to not recommend approval of the 'A' zoning. Justin Mabey and Matt Lowder/Applicants commented they were not initially requesting to build 290 units on the property. The number of units have increased through the requirements established in the annexation agreement, which have increased the cost of the project, especially with the inclusion of the public roadway required by the Town. It was stated the agreement would limit the number of units that can be built on the property. They stated 'A-1" zoning would have been requested if the zoning would have allowed for consolidation of the units, which would reduce the environmental impact. They commented on the desire to build something the Town can be proud of, that feels like Estes Park, and be financially viable. Those speaking in opposition to the 'A' zoning included Gina Stine/County resident, Harry KenVCounty resident, Gerald McDorman/County resident, Bob Leavitt/County resident, Brad Nielson/County resident and Joan Hooper/County resident stating rezoning versus establishment of zoning would be a matter of semantics; the stated development would not add to the historic value of the property and would do the opposite; the Town should chose community with a distinctive character and natural beauty over development; the Town should support the constituents; the property through the development of the Comprehensive Plan was identified for low density accommodations and the current proposed development would be classified as high density accommodations; the density and scope are excessive for the property; concerned with the proposed public road; and the development on this property would be the wrong place due to the ridgeline and pristine land. Those speaking in support of the [A' zoning included John Smith/County resident, John and Wini Spahnle/Town resident, and John Moore/County resident commented the applicants have employed local contractors; care about the property and the historic value of the buildings and the property; change can be hard but it can be beneficial to the community; and the development would benefit the Town now and in the future. Town Board comments were heard and have been summarized: stated concern the Town had developed an image that it does not want to support development in the community; the Town may not have a developer that has the same passion for the property as the current owners; the annexation agreement protects the property from the maximum development potential; the agreement provides guiding principles and does not provide approval of the development; zoning decisions should not be based on the cost of the development and not the economic viability of the development; the density remains too high for this property; the best use of the land should be considered rather than the impact to the developer; and the properties surrounding this development had to be developed to get us to where we are today. It was moved and seconded (Younglund/Brown) to approve Ordinance 06-26, and it passed with Trustees Igel and Lancaster voting "No". Whereupon Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 12:53 a.m. -/" ^-^.-^ Gary Hall, *\" —,. v-^ - - ^ JL~''> .. 0 Q .<->• >-^-M^'<CS>n-^- Ja^kie Williamson, Town Clerk <J