HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 1999-08-24JTown of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado,August 24,1999
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado.Meeting held in the Municipal
Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of August,1999.
Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L.Dekker.
Present:Robert L.Dekker,Mayor
Susan L.Doylen,Mayor ProTem
Trustees Jeff Barker
John Baudek
George J.Hix
Lori Jeffrey
Also Present:Rich Widmer,Town Administrator
Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk
Gregory A.White,Town Attorney
Absent:Stephen W.Gillette
Mayor Dekker called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.to consider the Liquor Show
Cause Hearings for The Wheel,Nicky’s,and The Stanley Hotel.Trustee Hix
declared a “conflict of interest”,stated he would not participate in discussion nor vote,
and vacated the council chamber.
Mayor Dekker reviewed the “Procedure for Show Cause Hearings”that would be
followed.Editor’s note:the meeting was officially recorded by Blando Reporting
Service,and those offering testimony were sworn-in by the reporter.
Park Wheel Co.,dba THE WHEEL.Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing
for Police Field Incident Report #99-675 alleging that The Wheel sold alcoholic
beverage to an underage person.Those persons involved in presenting the
case:Jerome Roselle,Prosecuting Attorney for the Police Dept.,and Pat
Murphy,Defendant’s Attorney.Those witnesses offering testimony included:
Sgt.Gary J.Fox,Marlin Flowers,Bartender/The Wheel,Steve Nagl,Owner/The
Wheel.
Public testimony was heard from Rhonda Hickon,Bartender/The Wheel,and
Town Attorney White commented that correspondence received from Mr.and
Mrs.Jay Grooters would be held should the case proceed toward litigation.
There being no further testimony,Mayor Dekker closed public hearing.Town
Attorney White advised that two additional hearings must yet be heard,the
meeting is already behind schedule,and that prior to making a decision,the
Town Board would return at 7:00 to consider the standard Agenda.
New Stanley Associates LP and GHV-Colo.,Inc.,dba THE STANLEY
HOTEL.Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing for Police Field Incident
Report #99-680 alleging that The Stanley Hotel sold alcoholic beverage to an
underage person.Those persons involved in presenting the case:Jerome
Roselle,Prosecuting Attorney for the Police Dept.,and H.Alan Dill,Defendant’s
Attorney.Mr.Dill confirmed that The Stanley has admitted the violation took
place and they are seeking consideration for the suspension period,suggesting a
fine in lieu of suspension,to lessen the impact to their significant number of
guests.
Attorney Roselle pointed out that the bartender Jason Curtis was genuinely sorry
for the violation and he clearly did not try to deflect responsibility.
Board of Trustees —August 24,1999 —Page 2
As there was no public comment,Mayor Dekket closed the hearing.
Safeway Stores 46,Inc.,dba SAFEWAY.Attorney Dill confirmed that Staff had
negotiated a Stipulation Agreement,thus under the terms,the suspension period
for a second violation is 30 days.Actual suspension is 10 days,from August 25
through September 3,with the remaining 21 days held in abeyance for one year.
All employees are to attend TIPS training.
It was moved and seconded (Barker/Jeffrey)the Stipulation Agreement be
approved,authorizing the Mayor to execute a Findings and Order of
Suspension for the suspension as listed above,and it passed unanimously.
Pursuant to a question concerning precedent,Town Attotney White confirmed
that each liquor violation must be judged on their own merits—a precedence is
inappropriate in judging alleged liquor violations.
Nicky’s Restaurant and Lounge,Ltd.,dba NICKY’S RESTAURANT &
LOUNGE.Mayor Dekker opened the public hearing for Police Field Incident
Report #99-681 alleging that Nicky’s Restaurant &Lounge sold alcoholic
beverage to an underage person.Those persons involved in presenting the
case:Jerome Roselle,Prosecuting Attorney for the Police Dept.,and Zach
Wilson,Defendant’s Attorney.Those witnesses offering testimony included:
Officer Ryan Alberts,Sgt.Gary J.Fox,Tory Nelson,Bartender/Nicky’s,and Nick
Kane,Owner/Nicky’s.
Mayor Dekker announced a recess at 6:38 p.m.,advising the meeting would continue at
7:00 p.m.
Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.The meeting will continue with the
standard agenda as printed,with the Nicky’s case to follow.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS:
None.
1.CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.Town Board Minutes dated August 10,1999.
2.Bills.
3.Committee Minutes:
A.Public Works,August 19,1999:
1.Lake Estes/Mall Road Trail Design Scope of Services —
Approval of budget expenditure.
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Jeffrey)the consent calendar be approved,and it
passed unanimously.
2.ACTION ITEMS:
1.Resolution #21-99 —Instituting procedure to address a Protest of an
Initiated Ordinance Ballot Title.Town Attorney White advised that,
pursuant to Section 31-11-111(4)C.R.S.,the Town must have an
ordinance or resolution that establishes procedure for protest of any ballot
Board of Trustees —August 24,1999—Page 3
title for an initiated ordinance or referendum.Attorney White read the
Resolution,and it was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen)Resolution
#21 -99 be adopted,and it passed unanimously.
2.Initiated Ordinance Petition —Prohibiting the Exhibition of Animals.
In a memorandum dated August 18,1999,Town Clerk O’Connor advised
that she received eight Petitions on August 4th The Petitions contained
274 signatures;47 were disqualified;and 227 signatures were verified.
The required 5%of the registered electors,223,were obtained,and
Statement of Sufficiency was issued August gth The Board of Trustees
must either:(1)adopt,without alteration,the Initiated Ordinance as
proposed,or (2)refer the Initiated Ordinance to the registered electors of
the municipalities.Staff suggested that if option 2 is selected,the
Ordinance could be placed on the Larimer County Ballot scheduled
November 2,1999.
Clerk O’Connor read the following correspondence:letter dated August
23,1999 from Cindy Schonholz,Animal Welfare Coordinator/Professional
Rodeo Cowboys Assn.(the Assn.believes the ordinance is vaguely
written;the “exceptions”portion does not give clear exemptions of
activities,but creates “specific defense”to charges—does this mean that a
person can be charged with a crime and then use these defenses;
definition and interpretation questions;and the negative impact on Estes
Park’s economy).Letter dated August 24,1999 from Kathie Troudt Riley,
Colorado Director/Friends of Rodeo (expressed concern relative to
banning aquariums in offices,therapeutic animals,etc.;the ordinance
contains no exemptions,exceptions or defenses;Estes Park economy;
and risk to rodeo related animal events.Letter dated August 17,1999
from Zoe Rappoport,Cruelty Caseworker/People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (P.E.T.A.)(expressed opposition to the “plexi-glass animal
exhibit”proposed for Estes Park,and stated they receive complaints of
dispirited animals at roadside zoos).
Trustee Baudek requested clarification that the Initiated Ordinance
addresses “animals”,not “wildlife”,and that the four items contained in the
Ordinance are specific defenses,anyone exhibiting could be charged and
then have to defend themselves.Attorney White responded that yes,
“animals”,not “wildlife”is contained in the Ordinance.Regarding the four
specific defenses,the Ordinance does not contain a definition of “exhibit”,
it is uncertain/unclear what,if any,violations could occur.In addition,
White confirmed that although the Park School Dist.and RMNP could
have temporary exhibits,the Town could not.
Trustee Baudek commented that in his opinion,the proponents have little
concern with animals and are targeting a specific development.He does
respect true concern for the animals;outside interests leave Estes Park
without living with the consequences of their actions,and he urged voters
to consider what person,activity,etc.might be the next target,“be careful,
it could be you.”
Initiated Ordinance Proponent,Ricki Ingersoll,stated the ordinance is a
“general ordinance”,three attorneys have reviewed same,Item 1.(b)“it is
a specific defense...”means no charges will be brought against these
exceptions -domestic animals are accepted,rodeos accepted,and DOW
definitions and language were used as well as the USDA definition of
exhibition.Ms.Ingersoll’s intent is that Rocky Mountain wildlife not be
caged,and it has been proved time and again that animals in roadside
zoos learn degradation.The ordinance has nothing to do with property
Board of Trustees —August 24,1999 —Page 4
rights and zoning.Ms.Ingersoll asked the Board to demonstrate bravery
and courage,and to think of this issue with their heart.
Michelle Rokke/Rocky Mountain Animal Defense (RMAD),speaking to
clear up misconceptions:RMAD got involved because residents asked
them to.RMAD is not trying to evoke change in Estes Park,they are
trying to maintain status quo.The Initiated Ordinance will not affect rodeo,
etc.,the issue deals strictly with caged animals for commerce—keep
Rocky Mountain wildlife out of cages.Estes Park is being given an
opportunity to do the right thing,an opportunity to represent the citizens.
This issue is receiving strong response across the country,receiving
national media attention,and donations come from national and local
persons—RMAD has the funds to generate a full-blown campaign.
Animals feel loneliness,pain,sense of loss,etc.,and the DOW will not
allow captive animals here.Zoo babies get sold —just because they are
born in captivity doesn’t change their feelings.1CM is an outside company
trying to evoke change and disrupt the community.Trustee Barker
questioned whether the Ordinance was directly targeted at the 1CM
project,and whether RMAD would have come to Estes Park if 1CM had
not put forth their project.Ms.Rokke responded that RMAD was asked to
come to Estes Park and get involved specifically on this 1CM project.
Trustee Doylen clarified that 1CM,not Estes Park,is planning the wildlife
center;Estes Park is teeming with wildlife and not everyone has access to
wildlife areas due to safety,handicapped accessibility,and the like.There
is a segment of the population that without such a wildlife center,would
never have the ability to observe wildlife.Ms.Rokke responded there is a
surplus of videos from reputable zoos that provide videos.Trustee
Baudek commented that the addition of “wild”would have been helpful in
the Initiated Ordinance.Trustee Jeffrey stated she respects the passion of
all concerned,however,as previously stated,the Ordinance is flawed,and
the citizens should be allowed to make the choice.Mayor Dekker agreed
with comments made by the Trustees,adding that it is offensive to have
people outside of Town trying to make changes and leaving without
having to live with the consequences.Mayor Dekker expressed his faith
in the citizens,urging them to look at all aspects of the Initiated Ordinance
and make the right decision.
Comments in support of the Initiated Ordinance were heard from Estes
Park petition circulators Alan Aulabaugh and Karen Steadman.
Comments of concern and/or opposition were heard from Elowise Yoder,
Boulder.
Town Attorney White read Resolution #22-99 and the ballot title.Trustee
Hix commented that the “ordinance is flawed”,and it was moved and
seconded (Hix/Doylen)the Board select Option 2,and that Resolution
#22-99 be adopted,referring the Initiated Ordinance to the registered
electors of the Town of Estes Park for the November 2,1999
Coordinated Election with Larimer County,and it passed unanimously.
Following is the ballot title:
INITIATIVE
Shall the Town of Estes Park prohibit the exhibition of animals in a
cage or other enclosure or the exhibition of animals by tethering the
animal to an object?
Yes
No
It was moved and seconded (Hix/Doylen)the Town Clerk be
authorized to execute the Election Agreement with Larimer County
Board of Trustees —August 24,1999 —Page 5
for the Coordinated Election November 2,1999,and it passed
unanimously.
3.EPURA Resolution #275 —Requesting the Town Place the Mountain
Discover-v Concept on the Ballot for the November 2,1999
Coordinated Election.EPURA Chairman Putney reiterated EPURA’s
Goals that were reported to the Town Board in February,and EPURA
Resolution #275 was read.Mountain Discovery of Estes Park is a
proposed mixed-use development that will offer interpretive exhibits that
explore the natural,scientific and cultural history of RMNP and Estes
Park.It will include:
•New Visitor Information Center that replaces the existing
Information Center.
•National Park information desk staffed by NPS personnel.
•Restaurant
Retail Shop
•Education Displays
300-seat large-screen theater featuring an original film about
RMNP.
•380 Public parking spaces.
•Access to Estes Park’s hiking and biking trail system.
The building is expected to be approximately 27,000 sq.ft.situated on a
10-acre site.Mountain Discovery of Estes Park is expected to break
ground in April,2000 and open in Summer,2001.Project costs are
estimated at $11 Million,funded through a public/private partnership
between EPURA and Amfac Parks &Resorts,a Denver-based
management company with will operate the facility.There are no new
taxes associated with this project.The facility will blend architecturally
with Estes Park as it will reflect what today’s architects call “parkitecture”,
a term that suggests use of native materials,rustic features and
environmentally friendly facilities.Chairman Putney further outlined
community benefits and referred to EPURA Resolution 275 requesting the
Town Board place consideration/desirability of Mountain Discovery of
Estes Park on the November 2,1999 Ballot.
Mayor Dekker urged citizens to vote in the upcoming election,and
announced open houses that begin Wednesday,8/25 at 7:00 p.m.in
Room 203.Trustee Barker noted that preliminary work is done,it is now
time for the people of Estes Park to find out what this project is about,and
he encouraged citizens to attend the open houses and share information.
Trustee Hix stated that submitting this development proposal to the
citizens is very important—the voters need to express their opinion to the
Town Board.He appreciated EPURA dovetailing other current
improvements into this project.Trustee Baudek thanked EPURA for all
their hard work and recommendation to the Town Board and supported
the proposal being offered to the voters.
Attorney White read the following ballot question,and it was moved and
seconded (Hix/Doylen)the Board of Trustees refer
considerationldesirability of Mountain Discovery of Estes Park to the
registered electors of Estes Park,placing the question on the
November 2,1999 Coordinated Election,and it passed unanimously.
Board of Trustees —August 24,1999—Page 6
REFERENDUM
Shall the Town of Estes Park,through the Estes Park Renewal
Authority,enter into a public/private partnership with Amfac Parks
and Resorts to construct Mountain Discovery?
Yes
______
No
4.Appointment to Stanley Hall Advisory Board —Acknowledge
Resignation of Greig Steiner and Appointment of Jon Sypher.Mayor
Dekker announced Greig Steiner’s resignation,noting Mr.Steiner’s
diligence and commitment to Stanley Hall,and the appointment of Jon
Sypher.It was moved and seconded (Hix/Jeifrey)Mr.Steiner’s
resignation be accepted with regret,appreciating his time and effort
on this project,filling the vacancy with Jon Sypher,and it passed
unanimously.
5.Resolution #23-99 —Intent to Annex Kiowa Ridge Addition,refer to
Planning Commission.It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Baudek)
Resolution #23-99 be adopted,and it passed unanimously.The 111.09
acre site is owned by William Van Horn,Robert Koehler,and Mr.and Mrs.
William Pike.The Resolution refers the proposed annexation to the
Planning Commission for their meeting September 21,1999.
6.TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT.
A.OurFest Report.Approximately 130 people attended the First
Annual OurFest August 17th There was inclement weather just
prior to the event;however,following music provided by the
Elktones,the movie,ANTZ was presented.The Stanley Park
Baseball Field was a very favorable location to host this event and
it was well organized.Town Administrator Widmer complimented
Linda Hinze for a job well done.
Mayor Dekker announced a recess at 8:08 p.m.stating the Board of Trustees would
continue their consideration of the Show Cause Hearing for Nicky’s Restaurant &
Lounge Ltd.Trustee Hix was excused and he vacated the room.
Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Nicky’s Restaurant and Lounge,Ltd.,dba NICKY’S RESTAURANT &
LOUNGE.Attorney Wilson presented his case,and those witnesses offering
new and/or additional testimony were:Tory Nelson,Bartender/Nicky’s,Nick
Kane,Owner/Nicky’s Restaurant &Lounge,Officer Alberts,and Sgt.Fox.
Prosecuting Attorney Roselle presented his case.As there were no public
comments,Mayor Dekker closed the hearing,and requested the Town Board
enter Executive Session to deliberate as an administrative body and receive legal
advice.It was moved and seconded (Doylen/Barker)the request be
approved,and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Dekker recessed the meeting at 9:27 p.m.
Mayor Dekker reconvened the meeting at 10:12 p.m.
Park Wheel Co.,dba THE WHEEL.Trustee Doylen stated that yes,mistakes
were made in this particular case;however,the mistake was redressed by the
person involved.Whereas too much of the evidence is in dispute to find with
certainty that the transaction took place,it was moved and seconded
(Doylen/Baudek)the Town Board find that the evidence is inadequate in this
Board of Trustees —August 24,1999 —Page 7
case to find a violation of State Statute 1247-901.This is no way a finding
of fault with Police Officers nor is it putting them on trial.Likewise,it does
not forgive the actions of the bartender involved.As to the gravity of the
situation fortunately in this particularly case,all were lucky alcohol was not
consumed by an underage person and an accident did not occur.The
motion passed unanimously.
Nicky’s Restaurant and Lounge,Ltd.,dba NICKY’S RESTAURANT &
LOUNGE.Trustee Doylen stated that yes,mistakes were made in this particular
case;howevet,the mistake was redressed by the person involved.Whereas too
much of the evidence is in dispute to find with certainty that the transaction took
place,it was moved and seconded (DoylenlBaudek)the Town Board finds
that there is too much evidence to dispute that the alleged transaction took
place to find a violation of State Statute 12-47-901.This is no way a finding
of fault with Police Officers not is it putting them on trial.Likewise,it does
not forgive the actions of the bartender involved.As to the gravity of the
situation fortunately in this particularly case,all were lucky alcohol was not
consumed by an underage person and an accident did not occur.The
motion passed unanimously.
New Stanley Associates LP and GHV-Colo.,Inc.,dba THE STANLEY
HOTEL.It was moved and seconded (Baudek/Doylen)The Stanley Hotel be
found in violation of State Statute 12-47-901 and serve 21 day suspension
as follows:5 consecutive days from August 25th through September 2,
1999,accepting a fine in lieu of suspension for an additional 5 days equal
to 20%of the gross liquor revenues for that period.The 11 days held in
abeyance are suspended on the condition that no further violations occur
through August 29,2000.The motion passed unanimously.Trustee Baudek
reiterated,there is a choice after the first 5 consecutive days:serve the 5
additional days or pay a fine.
Trustee Barker suggested that if The Stanley elects to pay the fine,the monies
be allocated toward alcohol education,such as MADD,DARE,etc.Stanley
representative John Korpi questioned and Mayor Dekker clarified,the motion.
There being no further business,Mayor Dekker a
£
Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk