OFDOED  EST. 1309 AGENDA DOLORES COLORADO TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING SEPTEMBER 23RD 2024, 5:30 P.M. BOARD MEETING FOR THE ZOOM LINK itips/townofdolores.colorado.goy  THEI MEETING WILL BE HELD ATTHET TOWN HALL 601 CENTRAL AVENUE.  FOUMOTOATTAOVRTUNN, PLEASE VISIT THE TOWN' WEBSITE UNDER GOVERNMENTTOWN  WORKSHOP:530P.M.  1. Nina Williams: Dolores Watershed Collaborative: to discuss Wildfire Risk Reduction, Reliability, and  Asset Protection Project (WRAP). 2. Michelle Furi: Montelores Coalition. BOARD MEETING 6:30 P.M. 1. CALLTOORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL  4.A ACTION/APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA  5. IDENTIFICATION OF ACTUAL ORI PERCEIVED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.  6. ACTION/APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Board by a single motion approve matters that are considered routine or non-controversial. Here will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Board Member requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be Considered under specific Agenda item numbers. No consent agenda  at this time.  7. REMOVED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:  1Page    8. CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: This is an opportunity for Citizens to address the Board at this time or during al Public Hearing. Each Person will have 5 minutes. The Town Board encourages public comment byt the following sources: Live at the Town Hall, virtually via ZOOM (see the Town Website for the link), or by submitting your comments, via email, to the Town Clerk atj ammyetowndtdlerscon  any time before the dated Board meeting.  .STAFF/COMMITEE EPOIS/PAESENTATONS:  9.1 Managers Report 9.2 Attorneys Report: Jon Kelly 9.3Treasurers Report: 9.4Commissioner: Jim Candelaria 10. TRUSTEES REPORTS. AND ACTIONS: 10.1 Mayor Chris Holkestad 10.2Trustee Kalin Grigg 10.3Trustee Sheila' Wheeler 10.4Trustee Mark' Youngquist 10.5Trustee Chris Curry 10.6Trustee Linneal Peterson 10.7Trustee Marie Roan  11. PUBLIC HEARINGS/ORDINANCE ADOPTION: Dolores Municipal Code pertaining to Special Events.  11.1 Public Hearing/Second Reading: Ordinance 579 Series 2024 Amending Title 5 of the 11.2 Public Hearing/Second Reading: Ordinance 580 Series 2024 Amending Title 5 of the 11.3Public hearing/Second Reading: Ordinance 581 Series 2024 Authorizing thet transfer of Town Owned Property located at 47 Railroad Avenue Dolores Colorado. (Dolores Fire Protection  Dolores Municipal Code pertaining to the Regulation of Alcohol sales.  District).  12. ACTION/APPROVAL RESOLUTIONS: 13. ADMINISTRATVEBOARD BUSINESS:  12.1 Resolution R622 Series 2024: Letter for DWC-WRAP grant  2IPage    14. UPCOMING BOARD, COMMITTEE AND SPECIAL GROUP MEETINGS: 14.1 Planning and Zoning Meeting October: 1*, 2024 14.2 Parks/Planning meeting October 10th,2024  14.3 Dolores Community Center Committee meeting September 24th, 2024  15. ADJOURNMENT:  3IPage    GOIERA  Town Manager's Report  Date: September 18th, 2024 To: Board of Trustees From: Leigh Reeves  New Townhall - We are pouring new concrete with ADA compliant sidewalks around the building. The bollards are in SO no one can hit the building again. Hopefully the concrete will be poured before our meeting on the 23rd. P&Z-Youl have the review of the FPD plat included in the packet. The Commissioners recommended moving forward with approval for this request. We will have a resolution/ordinance to insure we have right of first refusal if the  FPD ever decides to vacate the property in perpetuity.  We submitted the final GOCO application on September 11th, for $776K. We will know by the end of the 2nd week of October if we are moving on to the final board review. The American Ramp Company called me, they have space in their schedule to do some of the work on the skate park in December. lam not  sure we can move that fast but it is good to know.  Before you on Monday will be the 2nd reading of Ordinance 579, which refines the special event permit process. We will have a public hearing this evening. This is part of the modernization of Ordinances we discussed at the Board Retreat. This ordinance grants the board greater flexibility, aligning with a more  adaptable town ordinance structure.  601 Central. Ave, POBox 6301 Dolores, CO. 81323 Ph. 970-882-7720 fax. 970-882-7466 wwpmohorscleag"    ACTIDRA  Before you will be Ordinance 580, 2nd reading and public hearing, which expands our festival liquor licensing rules, attracting a wider variety of vendors. This ordinance also paves the way for economic development, ensuring that  we are prepared and proactive when opportunities arise.  Ordinance 581 fulfills the wishes of the citizens by transferring ownership oft the fire department property to them, while also ensuring that the town retains the right of first refusal if the FPD decides to relocate. This will be the 2nd reading  and public hearing for this action.  Also, Resolution 622 is a letter of support for the Grant action listed below. This will help DWR achieve the goal of a study on the upper Dolores River.  Nina Williams and DWR need a letter of support for her grant request package. Additionally, she will be applying for financial support in this year's round of funding requests from the Town of Dolores. For those of you that are new, every year we give funding to several non-profits, such as four corners recycling. Nina will be here on Monday, Sept 23rd. She will be discussing the CWCB (CO Water Conservation Board) grant needed to provide a WRAP (Wildlife risk reduction, reliability, and asset protection project. Itis a $400K  grant to study the upper Dolores.  Michele Furi will also be joining the workshop to give an update on the Montelores Coalition's work toward land conservancy while encouraging recreational activities to promote economic development in the area.  Working with the Mayor on understanding our expenses and ensuring we have two signatures on each check that gets paid. Upon my return from vacation, I  601 Central Ave,] P 01 Box 6301 Dolores, CO. 81323 Ph. 970-882-7720: fax. 970-882-7466 MAsbATANaASEeN    ADFDOAO  Sr.  will be solely focused on budget 2025. Ihave found some errors in the data that need to be corrected for a more accurate budget analysis.  While we don'thave a formal treasurer's report, Ican share that July's sales tax collection was $111,405.78, which is a significant increase from our typical summer figures in the $90Krange. Iwill have a treasurer's report for the next  meeting.  Thei town has also accepted the resignation of RJ Cross, a long member of the team. He will be moving on to Texas where he will work in the power industry. Ify you would like to wish him well his last day is Wednesday, Sept 25th. He can be reached at Ru@lownoldores.com, He will be sorely missed by all. Unfortunately, we could not pay him enough to keep him in town.  Iwill be on vacation in Italy, September 21st through 28th. Jon will be running Monday'sm meeting and workshop. Please call by Friday if you have any  questions.  601 Central. Ave, POI Box 630 Dolores, CO. 81323 Ph. 970-882-77201 fax. 970-882-7466 w.ohawscleapN    ORDINANCE NO579 SERIES 2024  AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE: 5 OF' THE DOLORES MUNICIPAL CODE  PERTAINING TO SPECIAL EVENTS  WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes, $ 31-15-401 grants general police powers to the Board of Trustees to promulgate ordinances for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, including regulation ofl lands owned by the Town within its corporate boundaries.  WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes, $3 31-35-402 grants general powers to the Board of Trustees to regulate festivals, events and the sale of alcohol and promulgate ordinances for the health, safety, and welfare oft the public, including regulation of lands owned by the Town within its  corporate boundaries.  WHEREAS, there is a need to amend and modernize the Town's ordinances pertaining to WHEREAS, the Board ofTrustees, in order toj promote thel health, safety, and welfare of the public in order balance the benefits and burdens that come with the Town'si increasing popularity of special events, and changes to the manner in which alcohol is commonly sold, wishes to amend  manner in which special event permits and sale of alcohol are: issued.  Section 5.04.040 and add additional section oft the Dolores Municipal Code  NOW THEREFORE, BEI IT ORDAINED BY TOWN OF DOLORES BOARD OF  TRUSTEES THATar new Chapter 5.04.040 to the Dolores Municipal Code as follows: Section 1. Dolores Municipal Code Section 5.04.040 is repealed, replaced, and amended as  follows:  5.04.040. - SPECIAL EVENTS BUSINESS LICENSE  Section 5.04.041.- Purpose.  The purpose oft this chapter is toj provide for and regulate the use of] public property to: minimize the impacts of large groups and to ensure that public property is reasonably available and safe for use  by the public.  Section 5.04.042. -] Definitions.  As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:  Demonstration means ai rally, picketing, protest, speechmaking, march, vigil, religious service or Public property means any property owned or controlled by the Town and open to the public or available for public use, including without limitation public streets, rights-of-way, sidewalks, parks, Special event means a planned event involving a gathering of 50 or more people which occurs on parks, streets, or other public property, including without limitation block parties, parades, festivals, walks, running or bicycle races, fundraisers, picnics, or sports tournaments, but excluding  open space, facilities, and public buildings.  demonstrations.    Section 5.04.043. - Permit required. without a valid permit issued under this chapter. Section 5.04.044. - Exemptions. Community Center. Section 5.04.043. Application.  It is unlawful for any person to stage, hold, present, or conduct a special event within the Town  The provisions ofthis chapter shall not apply to an indoor event or including an event at the Dolores  A. Any person desiring to sponsor or conduct a special event shall file an application with the B. Each application shall be accompanied by a signed indemnification agreement stating that the applicant, in exchange for issuance of the permit, agrees to reimburse the Town for any costs incurred by the Town in repairing damages to public property caused by the applicant, sponsors, invitees, or participants of the special event or demonstration and agreeing to defend the Town against, and indemnify and hold the Town harmless from, any liability to any person or property C. Each application shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable application fee in such amount established by resolution of the Town Council. Demonstration permits shall not be subject to an D. Eacha application from an entity shall provideacertificate ofgood standing from the Colorado  Town Manager's office on a form supplied by the Town.  that arises from ori is related to the special event or demonstration.  application fee. Secretary of State. E. status. F.  Each application from a not for profit organization shall provide proof of its tax exempt Each application from an entity shall disclose the name, address, phone number and email address of the event organizer authorized to act on behalf of the entity and be accompanied by a A. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Town Manager shall transmit copies of the application to such persons, agencies, or departments as the Town Manager deems appropriate. Within ten days, the referral agencies shall provide the Town Manager with any comments B. The Town Manager shall recommend approval, denial or conditional approval an application for a special event permit to the Board of Trustees within 40 days of receipt of the completed  resolution signed by the governing board oft the organization.  Section 5.04.044. -1 Review; decision.  concerning the application.  application.  Section 5.04.045. - Criteria for denial; conditions.  A. The Board ofTrustees shall apply the following criteria in determining whether to grant or  deny special event permit:    1. 2. 3.  Whetherinformation contained int the application or supplemental information obtained from Whether the applicant is not legally competent to contract under Colorado law;  the applicant is found to be false: in any material detail;  Whether the applicant or the person on whose behalf the application is made has failed to pay costs, fees, or deposits for a previous special event or demonstration permit within thej preceding five years; or the applicant has failed toj pay the Town for damages arising from aj previous special event or demonstration held by the applicant, regardless of when such event was held;  4. 5.  Whether the applicant has failed to abide by the requirements or conditions of a previous Whether the special event will conflict with: a special event or demonstration for which a permit has already been issued; a Town-sponsored event; or an annual special event which is reasonably expected tol be held again, but for which an application has yet to be submitted.  permit within the preceding five years;  6. 7. 8. 9.  Whether the location of the special event will substantially interfere with any scheduled Whether the special event will cause significant disruption in the ability of the Town to Whether adequate sanitation and other required health facilities are: not and cannot be made Whether sufficient parking is not available near the location of the special event or demonstration to accommodate the number of vehicles reasonably expected, and an acceptable transportation and parking plan to provide adequate parking has not been submitted. B. The Board of Trustees may impose reasonable conditions on approval of a special event, when necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the public, including without  construction or maintenance work;  deliver or provide essential governmental services;  available at or sufficiently near the proposed special event or demonstration area(s); or  limitation: 1. 2. 3.  Alteration of the date, time, duration, frequency, route, or location of the special event; A deposit in an amount the Board ofTrustees finds is appropriate based upon an estimate of Proofofinsurance demonstrating that the permittee has in effect a policy of general liability insurance in an amount determined by the Town Manager based upon issues routinely considered  the actual costs to bei incurred by the Town in the clean-up oft the special event;  by the Town in evaluating loss exposures;  4.  Conditions concerning parking, pedestrian, or vehicular traffic, including without limitation  restricting the special event or demonstration to only a portion ofa street or right-of-way;    5. devices; 6. 7. 8. 9.  Traffic control requirements, such as traffic cones, barricades, or other traffic control  Provision of emergency access and first aid or sanitary facilities;  Supplemental fire protection or law enforcement personnel to bej present at the special event; Notice of the special event or demonstration to surrounding neighborhoods;  Restrictions on the number and type of vehicles, animals or structures and inspection and  prior approval ofi floats, structures and decorated vehicles;  10. Required trash receptacles, cleanup, and restoration of property;  11. Restrictions on amplified sound;  12. Designation of a contact person with decision-making authority who will be continuously available to law enforcement personnel and present at the special event or demonstration; 13. Provide proof that a sales tax has been obtained by the applicant or that the applicant is 14. Require that event vendors obtain a sales tax license unless taxes are collected by the event 15. Require that the event sponsor or organizer submit to the town clerk within thirty days after the conclusion of the special event a written financial report reflecting, at a minimum, total sales of goods and/or services generated at the special event and the total sales tax revenues collected. Compliance with the reporting requirements in this subsection shall be in addition to any required  exempt from sales tax; sponsor or organizer;  sales tax reporting due to the Colorado Department of Revenue. Section 5.04.046. - Duties of permittee; posting.  In connection with the holding of the special event for which aj permit is issued, a permittee shall: A. Comply with all of the terms and conditions of the permit and all applicable Town ordinances, the rules, regulations, and policies adopted by the Town Manager pursuant to Section B. Permit inspection of its records and special event facilities by the Town Manager for the purpose of determining the permittee's compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit; and C. Ensure that a copy oft the permit is continuously posted in a conspicuous location at the site D. Notify and ensure that all vendors ofthes special event are notified ofthe rules and conditions  5.04.050, and state. and federal law;  oft the special event throughout the duration of the event.  of the permit and where applicable oftheir duty to obtain a sales tax license.  Section 5.04.047. Suspension; revocation.    A. The Board of Trustees or the Town Manager may suspend or revoke a permit at any time prior to the special event or demonstration if: conditions change or facts come to light sO that the application could have been denied in the first instance; or the terms ofa conditional permit have B. The Town Manager may suspend or revoke a permit during the course of the special event or demonstration if: continuation oft the special event or demonstration presents a clear and present danger to the participants or the publicl health, safety or welfare; ort the special event ord demonstration C. In deciding whether aj permit should be suspended or revoked, the Board ofTrustees or' Town Manager shall consider: the nature and seriousness oft the issue; the corrective action, if any, taken D. No application fees paid by a permittee in connection shall be refunded if such permit is  not been satisfied in the time specified for meeting the condition.  fails to comply with any condition oft the permit or any applicable law.  by the permittee; and the likelihood ofrecurrence.  suspended or revoked.  Section 5.04.048. - Permit non-transferable.  Aj permit is non-transferable and: non-assignable. Any attempt to transfer or assign such permit voids  the permit.  Section 5.04.049.- - Relationship to other ordinances.  A. The permittee shall ensure that the special event or demonstration complies with all other 1. A permit issued under this chapter is not a special events liquor license. If alcoholic beverages are to be served, the permittee must obtain the required permit or approval.  applicable law. Specifically:  2.  A development permit or building permit may bei required depending upon the size and scale of any temporary structures proposed to be used in connection with the special event or  demonstration. 3.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, a permit issued under this chapter may authorize the permittee to display temporary signage in connection with the special event or demonstration, ifthe The Town Manager is authorized to adopt administrative rules, regulations and policies as may be  signage is included in the application and approved as part oft the permit.  Section 5.04.050. - Rules, regulations, and policies. necessary for the proper administration oft this chapter. Section 05.04.051. - Violation and penalty. punished as set forth in Chapter 1.12.010.  A. Iti is unlawful to violate any provision of this chapter. Violations of this chapter shall be B. In addition to all other available remedies, a special event without a valid permit issued  pursuant to this chapter may be enjoined by any court ofc competent jurisdiction.    Section 2. The Town Trustees hereby finds, determine, and declare that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power oft the Town of Dolores, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The Trustees further determine that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be Section 3. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision oft this Ordinance shall for any reason be held tol be invalid or unenforceable, thei invalidity or unenforceability ofany such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect any ofthe remaining provisions ofthis Ordinance. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. The Town ofDolores Board of Trustees hereby finds, determines, and declares this ordinance is necessary for immediate PUBLIC HEARING. This ordinance shall be considered for second or final reading on the gth day of September 2024, in the Town Board Chambers in Town Hall, Dolores, Colorado, at which time  attained.  preservation of the health, safety, and welfare ofits citizens.  and place all persons may appear and be heard concerning the same. Passed adopted and approved on the first reading this gth day of September 2024.  DOLORES BOARD OF TRUSTEES:  By:  Mayor Chris Holkestad  Attest  By:  Town Clerk Tammy Neely  Passed adopted and approved on the second and final reading this 23rd day of September 2024.  DOLORES BOARD OF TRUSTEES:  By:  Mayor Chris Holkestad  Attest:    By:  Town Clerk Tammy Neely    First Amendment Issues Around Special Event Permits  Municpal government has broad discretion to express its views subject to restrictions such as the Estblishment Clause. Rosenberger V. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 Granting an event permit to a private entity is NOT considered speach or endrosement of speach by the  (1995)  Speech by the  government versus government  Issuing a permit to hold. an event on government property isr regulation of speach by the government. Lehman V. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974) The next question is where the speach occrus - is the speach in a Traditional Public Forum?  Regulation of Speech by the government    *A1 traditional public forum includes streets and public parks. Hague V. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939) and Perry Ed. Assn. V. Perryl Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S.37, 45(1983)  Ist the permit to use Government has very limited ability to regulate speachi in a Traditional  ap park a Traditional Public Forum  Forum?  *Local governments MAY impose limtied licensing requirements, including fees, and regulate the time, place andi manner ofe events and Governments may NOT make arbitrary decisions on who is able tos speak and may! NOTI regulate the content oft thes speach in the Traditional Public Forsyth County, Ga. V. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, (1992).  speach ini the Traditional Public Forum.  Restrictions in Traditinal Public Forums  Forum.    No. The Town issued a special event permit to a private entity that chose to allow politcal Speech. This is not an endorsement the Town the views permit holder or its vendors.  Does the Town' Violate the Establishment Clause by whenavendor: allows politcialSpeech?  of  expressed by the  No. The town may NOT adopt regulations that restrict the type or content of Speech permitted by vendors at a special event permitted by the Town in a Traditional  May the Town regulate Speech by vendors at special events?  Public Forum such as a  parade.    Recalll that parks and streets are traditional public  forums for free speech  Parades are considered a traditional public forum Municipalities and other, government entities may not regulate the content ofspeech in a traditional  public forum  Municipalities may impose reasonable regulations on the time place and manner ofthes speech such as  requiring permits  Municipalities may NOT prohibit political messages  inj parades  But non, government parade organizers MAYregulate speech. For example in Hurley V. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group ofBoston (1995). Ina unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter; the Court held that the parade organizers- various veteransgroups-had afree speech right to exclude an Irish gay group. from participating in aSt.  Patrick's Day parade in Boston.  While some municipalities have banned parades altogether, Courts, including a recent federal district court case out fPhiladelphia have not approved of such policies where similar types ofevents C permitted. See Philadelphia Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Society City ofPhiladelphia.  are    Hurley V. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995). Ina a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that the parade organizers--various veterans'groups had a free speech right to exclude an Irish gay group from participating in a St. Patrick's Day parade in The gay group argued that their exclusion violated both the state and federal constitutions and the state public accommodations law, which prohibited "any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of.. .sexual orientation.. relative to the admission of any person to, or treatment in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement. " But the Court said that being forced to include groups, such as a gay and lesbian group, would alter "the parade's expressive content and thereby violated the fundamental First Amendment rule that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content ofhis own message and,  Boston.  conversely, to decide what not to say."  The Public Forum.  In 1895, while on the highest court of Mas-sachusetts, future Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes rejected a contention that public property was by right open recognized,1444 and on review the United States Supreme Court endorsed Holmes' view.1445 Years later, beginning with Hague V. CIO,1446 the Court reconsidered the issue. Justice Roberts wrote in Hague: "Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens." Although this opinion was not itself joined by a majority of the Justices, the Court subsequently endorsed the view in several opinions.1447 The Roberts view was called into question in the 1960s, however, when the Court seemed to leave the issue open,1448 and when a majority endorsed an opinion by Justice Black asserting his own narrower view of speech rights in public places.1449 Later decisions restated and quoted the Roberts language from Hague, and that is now the position of the Court.1450 Public streets and parks,1451 including those adjacent to courthouses1452 and foreign embassies,1453 as well as public libraries1454 and the grounds of legislative bodies,1455 are open to public demonstrations, although the uses to which  to the public as a place where the right of speech could be    public areas are dedicated may shape the range of permissible expression and conduct that may occur there.1456 Moreover, not all public properties are public forums. "IT]he First Amendment does not guarantee access to government. "1457 "The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically compatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time. '1458 Thus, by the nature of the use to which the property is put or by tradition, some sites are simply not as open for expression as 1459 But if government does open non-traditional forums for expressive activities, it may not discriminate on the basis of content or viewpoint in according access.1460 The Court, however, remains divided with respect to Speech in public forums is subject to time, place, and manner regulations that take into account such matters as control of traffic in the streets, the scheduling of two meetings or demonstrations at the same time and place, the preventing of blockages of building entrances, and the like.1462 Such regulations are closely scrutinized in order to protect free expression, and, to be valid, must be justified without reference to the content or subject matter of speech,1463 must serve a significant governmental interest,1464 and must leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.1465 The Court has written that a time, place, or manner regulation "must be narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate, content-neutral interests but that it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing SO. Rather, the requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied : [s]o long as the means chosen are not substantially broader neutral time, place, and manner regulation of the use of a public forum must also "contain adequate standards to guide the official's decision and render it subject to effective judicial review.' "1467 Unlike a content-Dased licensing scheme, however, it need not "adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in Freedman.'1468 These requirements include that the "burden of proving that the film [or other speech] is unprotected expression must rest on the censor, " and that the censor must, "within a specified brief period, either issue a license or go to court to restrain showing the film. Any restraint imposed in advance of a final judicial determination on the merits must similarly be limited to preservation of the status quo for the shortest fixed period compatible with sound judicial resolution. "1469 A corollary to the rule forbidding regulation based on content is the principle-a merging of free expression and equal protection standards--that government may not discriminate between different kinds of messages in affording access.1470 In order to ensure against covert forms of  property simply because it is owned or controlled by the  streets and parks are.  the reach of the public forum doctrine.1461  than necessary to achieve the government's interest  "1466 A content-    discrimination against expression and between different kinds of content, the Court has insisted that licensing systems be constructed as free as possible of the opportunity for arbitrary administration.1471 The Court has also applied its general strictures against prior restraints in the contexts of permit Ita appears that government may not deny access to the public forum for demonstrators on the ground that the past meetings of these demonstrators resulted in violence,1473 and may not vary a demonstration licensing fee based on an estimate of the amount of hostility likely to be engendered,1474 but the Court's position with regard to the "heckler's veto," the governmenta. termination of a speech or demonstration because of The Court has defined three categories of public property for public forum analysis. First, there is the traditional public forum- places such as streets and parks that have traditionally been used for public assembly and debate, where the government may not prohibit all communicative activity and must justify content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions as narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate interest.1476 Second, there is the designated public forum, where the government opens property for communicative activity and thereby creates a public forum. Such a forum may be limited- hence the expression "limited public forum"-for "use by certain groups, e.g., Widmar V. Vincent (student groups), or for discussion of certain subjects, e.g., City of Madison Joint School District V. Wisconsin PERC (school board business), "1477 but, within the framework of such legitimate limitations, "a content-Dased prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest.'1478 Third, with respect to "[pJublic property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication, " the government "may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on [sic] speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view."1479 The distinction between the first and second categories, on the one hand, and third category, on the other, can therefore determine the outcome of a case, because speakers may be excluded from the first and second categories only for a "compelling" governmental interest, whereas exclusion from the third The Court held that a school system did not create a limited public forum by opening an interschool mail system to use by selected civic groups "that engage in activities of interest and educational relevance to students, * and that, in any event, if a limited public forum had thereby been created a teachers union rivaling the exclusive bargaining representative could still be excluded as not being "of a similar character" to the civic groups.1480 Less  systems and judicial restraint of expression.1472  hostile crowd reaction, remains unclear.1475  category need only be reasonable."    problematic was the Court's conclusion that utility poles and other municipal property did not constitute a public forum for the posting of signs.1481 More problematic was the Court's conclusion that the Combined Federal Campaign, the Federal Government's forum for coordinated charitable solicitation of federal employees, is not a limited public forum. Exclusion of various advocacy groups from participation in the Campaign was upheld as furthering reasonable" governmental interests in offering a forum to "traditional health and welfare charities, - avoiding the appearance of governmental favoritism of particular groups or viewpoints, and avoiding disruption of the federal workplace by controversy.1482 The Court pinpointed the government's intention as the key to whether a public forum has been created: "The government does not create a public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a non- traditional forum for public discourse. "1483 Under this categorical approach, the government has wide discretion in maintaining the nonpublic character of its forums, and may regulate in ways that would be impermissible were it Application of these principles continues to raise often difficult questions. In United States V. Kokinda, a majority of Justices, who ultimately upheld a ban on soliciting contributions on postal premises under the reasonableness" review governing nonpublic fora, could not agree on the public forum status of a sidewalk located entirely on postal service property.1485 Two years later, in International Society for Krishna consclousness, Inc. V. Lee, the Court similarly divided as to whether non- secured areas of airport terminals, including shops and restaurants, constitute public fora.1486 A five-Justice majority held that airport terminals are not public fora and upheld regulations banning the repetitive solicitation A decade later, the Court considered the public forum status of the Internet. In United States V. American Library Association, Inc., a four-Justice plurality held that "Internet access in public libraries is neither a traditional' nor a designated' public forum. 1488 The plurality therefore did not apply strict scrutiny in upholding the Children's Internet Protection Act, which provides that a public school or "library may not receive federal assistance to provide Internet access unless it installs software to block images that constitute obscenity or child pornography, and to prevent minors from obtaining access to material that is harmful to them."1489 More recently, in Packingham V. North Carolina, the Court appeared to equate the Internet to traditional public fora like a street or public park. Specifically, Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, observed that, "[w]hile in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is  to designate a limited public forum.1484  of money within the terminals.1487    clear. It is cyberspace--the 'vast democratic forums of the Internet' in general, and social media in particular. "1490 Consequently, the Court struck down a North Carolina law making it a felony for registered sex offenders to use commercial social networking websites that allow minor children to be members, such as Facebook. Applying strict scrutiny, the Court held that the North Carolina law impermissibly restricted lawful speech as it was not narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest in protecting minors from registered sex offenders because it forecloseld] access to social media altogether, thereby "prevent- [ing] the user from engaging in the legitimate Nevertheless, although Internet access in public libraries is not a public forum, and particular Web sites, like particular newspapers, would not constitute public forums, the Internet as a whole might be viewed as a public forum, despite its lack of a historic tradition. The Supreme Court has not explicitly held that the Internet as a whole is a public forum, but, in Reno V.A ACLU, which struck down a prohibition in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 on "indecent" material on the Internet, the Court noted that the Internet "constitutes a vast platform from which to address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers. Any person or organization with a computer connected to the Internet can  exercise of First Amendment rights."1491  'publish' information. ."1492 Footnotes 1444  Commonwealth V. Davis, 162 Mass. 510, 511 (1895). "For the Legislature absolutely or conditionally to forbid public speaking in a highway or public park is no more an infringement of rights of a member of the public than for the owner  of a private house to forbid it in the house."J Davis V. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43, 48 (1897).   1445 1446 1447 1448  307 U.S. 496 (1939). Only Justice Black joined the Roberts opinion, but only Justices McReynolds and Butler dissented from the result.  E.g., Schneider V. Town of Irvington, 308 U.S. 147, 163 (1939); Kunz V. New Cox V. Louisiana, 379 U.S.536, 555 (1965). For analysis of this case in the broader context, see Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox V. Louisiana,  York, 340 U.S. 290, 293 (1951).   1965 SUP. CT. REV. 1.     1449  Adderley V. Florida, 385U.S.39.1966). See id. at 47-48; Cox V. Louisiana, 379 U.S.559, 578 (1965) (Justice Black concurring in part and dissenting in part); Jamison V. Texas, 318U.S.413, 416 (1943) (Justice Black for the Court). - E.g., Shuttlesworth V. City of Birmingham, 394U.S. 147, 152 (1969); Grayned V.City of Rockford, 408U.S.104, 115 (1972); Carey V. Brown, 447 U.S.455, Hague V. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939); Niemotko V. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951); Kunz V. New York, 340 U.S. 290(1951); Shuttlesworth V. City of Birmingham, 394U.S. 147 (1969); Coates V. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S.611 (1971); Grayned V. City of Rockford, 408 U.S.1 104 (1972); Greer V. Spock, 424 U.S.828, 835-36 (1976); Carey V. Brown, 447 U.S.455(1980). 1 Narrowly drawn statutes that serve the state's interests in security and in preventing obstruction of justice and influencing of judicial officers are constitutional. Cox V. Louisiana, 379 U.S.559(1965). A restriction on carrying signs or placards on the grounds of the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. as applied to the public sidewalks surrounding the Court, since it does not sufficiently further the governmental purposes of protecting the building and grounds, maintaining proper order, or insulating the judicial decisionmaking process from lobbying. United States V. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983). a In Boos V. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988), the Court struck down as content-Dased al District of Columbia law prohibiting the display of any sign within 500 feet of a foreign embassy if the sign tends to bring the foreign government into "public odium" or "public disrepute." However, another aspect of the District's law, making it unlawful for three or more persons to congregate within 500 feet of an embassy and refuse to obey a police dispersal order, was upheld; under a narrowing construction, the law had been held applicable only to congregations directed at an embassy, and reasonably believed to present a threat to the peace Brown V. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966) (sit-in in library reading room). - Edwards V. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229_(1963); Jeanette Rankin Brigade V. Capitol Police Chief, 342 F. Supp. 575 (D.C. 1972) (three-judge court), affd, 409 U.S.972 (1972) (voiding statute prohibiting parades and demonstrations on  1450  460 (1980).   1451  1452  1453  or security of the embassy. J  1454 1455  United States Capitol grounds).  1456  E.g., Grayned V. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104(1972) (sustaining ordinance prohibiting noisemaking adjacent to school if that noise disturbs or threatens to    disturb the operation of the school); Brown V. Louisiana, 383U.S.131 (1966) (silent vigil in public library protected while noisy and disruptive demonstration would not be); Tinker V. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S.503 (1969) (wearing of black armbands as protest protected but not if it results in disruption of school); Cameron V. Johnson, 390 U.S.611 (1968) (preservation of access to courthouse); Frisby V. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) (ordinance prohibiting picketing "before or about" any residence or dwelling, narrowly construed as prohibiting only picketing that targets a particular residence, upheld as furthering significant governmental interest in United States Postal Serv. V. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assn's, 453U.S.114  protecting the privacy of the home). -  1457 1458 1459  (1981). -  Grayned V. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116 (1972).   E.g., Adderley V. Florida, 385 U.S.39 (1966) (jails); Lehman V. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S.298 (1974) (advertising space in city rapid transit cars); Greer V. Spock, 424U.S.828 (1976) (military bases); United States Postal Service V. Council of Greenburgh Civic Ass'ns, 453 U.S.114(1981) (private mail boxes); Perry Educ. Ass'n V. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 4600.S.37 (1983) (interschool mail system); ISKCON V. Lee, 5050.5.672 (1992) (publicly E.g., Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad, 420U.S.546.0975) (municipal theater); Madison School District V. WERC, 429U.S.167.0976 (school board meeting); Heffron V. ISKCON, 452U.S.640 (1981) (state fair grounds); Widmar V. Vincent, 454 U.S.263 (1981) (university meeting facilities). - Compare United States Postal Service V. Council of Greenburgh Civic Ass'ns, 454 U.S.114, 128-31 (1981), with id. at 136-40 (Justice Brennan concurring), and division, compare ISKCON V. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992) with id. at 693 (Justice See, e.g., Heffron V. ISKCON, 452 U.S.640, 647-50 (1981), and id. at 656 (Justice Brennan concurring in part and dissenting in part) (stating law and discussing cases); Clark V. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468U.S. 288 (1984) (prohibition of sleep-in demonstration in area of park not designated for Niemotko V. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951); Cox V. Louisiana, 379U.S.536 (1965); Police Dep't of Chicago V. Mosle, 408 U.S.92 (1972); Madison School  owned airport terminal). J  1460  1461  142 (Justice Marshall dissenting). For evidence of continuing  Kennedy concurring).   1462  overnight camping). -  1463    District V. WERC, 429U.S. 167 (1976); Carey V. Brown, 447 U.S.455 (1980); Widmar V. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981). In Lehman V. City of Shaker Heights, 418U.S. 298(1974), a divided Court permitted the city to sell commercial advertising space on the walls of its rapid transit cars but to refuse E.g., the governmental interest in safety and convenience of persons using public forum, Heffron V. ISKCON, 452 U.S.640, 650 (1981); the interest in preservation of a learning atmosphere in school, Grayned V. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 115 (1972); and the interest in protecting traffic and pedestrian safety in the streets, Cox V. Louisiana, 3790.S.536, 554-55 (1965); Kunz V. New York, 340 U.S. 290, 293-94 (1951); Hague V. CIO, 307U.5.496, Heffron V. ISKCON, 452 U.S.640, 654-55 (1981); Consolidated Edison Co. V.  tos sell political advertising space.   1464  515-16 (1939).  1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470  PSC, 447U.S.530, 535 (1980). -  Ward V. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S.781, 798-99, 800 (1989). Thomas V. Chicago Park Dist., 534U.S.316, 323 (2002). L- Socialist Party V. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). J Freedman V. Maryland, 380U.S.51, 58-59 (1965). -  534 U.S. at 322, citing Freedman V. Maryland, 380U.S.51 (1965). See National  Police Dep't of Chicago V. Mosle, 408 U.S.92 (1972) (ordinance void that barred all picketing around school building except labor picketing); Carey V. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980) (same); Widmar V. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) (striking down college rule permitting access to all student organizations except religious groups); Niemotko V. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951) (striking down denial of permission to use parks for some groups but not for others); R.A.V. V. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (striking down ordinance that prohibited symbols, such as burning crosses, that constituted fighting words that insult on the basis of some factors, such as race, but not on the basis of other factors). These principles apply only to the traditional public forum and to the governmentally created "limited public forum." Government may, without creating a limited public forum, place "reasonable" restrictions on access to nonpublic areas. See, e.g., Perry Educ. Ass'n V. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S.37, 48 (1983) (use of school mail system); and Cornelius V. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (charitable solicitation of federal employees at workplace). See also Lehman V. City of Shaker Heights, 418U.S. 298 (1974) (city may sell commercial advertising space on the walls of its rapid    transit cars but refuse to sell political advertising space); Capitol Square Review Bd. V. Pinette, 515U.S. 753(1995) (denial of permission to Ku Klux Klan, allegedly in order to avoid Establishment Clause violation, to place a cross in plaza on grounds of state capitol); Rosenberger V. University of Virginia, 515 U.S.819/(1995) (University's subsidy for printing costs of student publications, available for student "news, information, opinion, entertainment, or academic communications," could not be withheld because of the religious content of a student publication); Lamb's Chapel V. Center Moriches School Dist., 508 U.S. 384(1993) (school district rule prohibiting after-hours use of school property for showing of a film presenting a religious perspective on child-rearing and family values, but allowing after-hours use for non-religious social, civic, and E.g., Hague V. CIO, 307U.5.496, 516 (1939); Schneider V. Town of Irvington, 308 U.S.147, 164 (1939); Cox V. New Hampshire, 312U.S.569 (1941); Poulos V. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395 (1953); Staub V. City of Baxley, 355U.S.3 313, 321-25 (1958); Cox V. Louisiana, 379 U.S.536, 555-58 (1965); Shuttlesworth V. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S.147, 150-53 (1969). Justice Stewart for the Court described these and other cases as "holding that a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of ali license without narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority is unconstitutional." Id. at 150-51. A person faced with an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it, engage in the desired conduct, and challenge the constitutionality of the permit system upon a subsequent prosecution for violating it. Id. at 151; Jones V. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 602 (1942) (Chief Justice Stone dissenting), adopted per curiam on rehearing, 319 U.S.103 (1943). See also City of Lakewood V. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S.750(1988) (upholding facial challenge to ordinance vesting in the mayor unbridled discretion to grant or deny annual permit for location of newsracks on public property); Riley V. National Fed'n of the Blind, 487 U.S.781 (1988) (invalidating as permitting "delay without limit" licensing requirement for professional fundraisers); Forsyth County V. Nationalist Movement, 505U.S.123 (1992). But see Walker V. City of Birmingham, 388US.307.0967) (same rule In Shuttlesworth V. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S.1 147 (1969), the Court reaffirmed the holdings of the earlier cases, and, additionally, both Justice Stewart, for the Court, id. at 155 n.4, and Justice Harlan concurring, id. at 162- 64, asserted that the principles of Freedman V. Maryland, 380U.5.5101965), governing systems of prior censorship of motion pictures, were relevant to permit systems for parades and demonstrations. The Court also voided an injunction against a protest meeting that was issued ex parte, without notice to the protestors and with, of course, no opportunity for them to rebut the representations of the seekers of the injunction. Carroll V. President and  recreational purposes).   1471  not applicable to injunctions). a  1472  Comm'rs of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175(1968).   1473    The only precedent is Kunz V. New York, 340U.S. 290 (1951). The holding was on a much narrower basis, but in dictum the Court said: "The court below has mistakenly derived support for its conclusions from the evidence produced at the trial that appellant's religious meetings had, in the past, caused some disorder. There are appropriate public remedies to protect the peace and order of the community if appellant's speeches should result in disorder and violence."Id. at 294. A different rule applies to labor picketing. See Milk Wagon Drivers Local 753 V. Meadowmoor Dairies, 312 U.S. 287 (1941) (background of violence supports prohibition of all peaceful picketing). The military may ban a civilian, previously convicted of destroying government property, from reentering a military base, and may: apply the ban to prohibit the civilian from reentering the base for purposes of peaceful demonstration during an Armed Forces Day "open house." Forsyth County V. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S.123 (1992) (a fee based on anticipated crowd response necessarily involves examination of the content of  United States V. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675(1985).   1474  the speech, and is invalid as a content regulation).   1475  Dicta indicate that a hostile reaction will not justify suppression of speech, Hague V. CIO, 307 U.S.496, 502 (1939); Cox V. Louisiana, 379 U.S.536, 551 (1965); Bachellar V. Maryland, 397 U.S.564, 567 (1970), and one holding appears to point this way. Gregory V. City of Chicago, 3940.S.111 (1969). Yet the Court upheld a breach of the peace conviction of a speaker who refused to cease speaking upon. the demand of police who feared imminent violence. Feiner V. New York, 340 U.S.315 (1951). In Niemotko V. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 273 (1951) (concurring opinion), Justice Frankfurter wrote: "It is not a constitutional principle that, in acting to preserve order, the police must proceed against the crowd whatever its size and temper and not against the speaker." ', -  1476  "[A]lthough a park is a traditional public forum for speeches and other transitory expressive acts, the display of a permanent monument in a public park is not a form of expression to which forum analysis applies. Instead, the placement of a permanent monument in a public park is best viewed as a form of government speech and is therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause." Perry Educ. Ass'n V. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 US.37,45,46n.7  Pleasant Grove City, Utah V. Summum, 555 U.S. at 464..   1477 1478 1479  (1983). 460U.S. at-46.,   460 U.S. at 46. Candidate debates on public television are an example of this third category of public property: the "nonpublic forum." Arkansas Educational Television Comm'n V. Forbes, 523 U.S.666, 679 (1998). "Although public    broadcasting as a general matter does not lend itself to scrutiny under the forum doctrine [.e., public broadcasters ordinarily are entitled to the editorial discretion toe engage in viewpoint discrimination), candidate debates present the narrow exception to this rule." Id. at 675. A public broadcaster, therefore, may not engage in viewpoint discrimination in granting or denying access to candidates. Under the third type of forum analysis, however, it may restrict candidate access for "a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral reason, such as a candidate's "objective  lack of support."Id. at 683.J  1480  Perry Educ. Ass'n V. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S.37 (1983). This was a 5-4 decision, with Justice White's opinion of the Court being joined by Chief Justice Burger and by Justices Blackmun, Rehnquist, and O'Connor, and with Justice Brennan's dissent being joined by Justices Marshall, Powell, and Stevens. See also Hazelwood School Dist. V. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) (student newspaper published as part of journalism class is not a public City Council V. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) (upholding an outright ban on use of utility poles for signs). The Court noted that "it is of limited utility in the context of this case to focus on whether the tangible property itself should be deemed a public forum." Id. at 815 n.32.   forum). -  1481  1482  Cornelius V. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 473U.S. 788( (1985). The precedential value of Cornelius may be subject to question, because it was decided by 4-3 vote, the non-participating Justices (Marshall and Powell) having dissented in Perry. Justice O'Connor wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Burger and by Justices White and Rehnquist. Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented, and Justice Stevens dissented  separately. J  1483  473 U.S. at 802. Justice Blackmun criticized "the Court's circular reasoning that the CFC is not a limited public forum because the Government intended to limit Justice Kennedy criticized this approach in ISKCON V. Lee, 505 U.S.672, 695 (1992) (concurring), contending that recognition of government's authority to designate the forum status of property ignores the nature of the First Amendment as "a limitation on government, not a grant of power." Justice Brennan voiced similar misgivings in his dissent in United States V. Kokinda: "public forum categories- originally conceived of as a way of preserving First Amendment rights-have been used : as a means of upholding restrictions on  the forum to a particular class of speakers."Id. at 813-14. -  1484  speech."497 U.S. at 741 (citation omitted). J  1485    497U.S.720, 727 (1990) CIRJegulation of speech activity where the Government has not dedicated its property to First Amendment activity is  examined only for reasonableness..  1486 1487  505 U.S.6 672 (1992). L  Id. at 683 ("[NJeither by tradition nor purpose can the terminals be described as satisfying the standards we have previously set out for identifying a public  forum.").. La  1488  539U.S.194, 205-06 (2003). ("We have 'rejected the view that traditional public forum status extends beyond its historic confines." The doctrines surrounding traditional public forums may not be extended to situations where such history is lacking." (quoting Ark. Educ. TV Comm'n V. Forbes, 5230.S.666, 679 (1998))). While decided on constitutional vagueness grounds, in Reno V. American Civil Liberties Union, the Court struck down a provision of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that prohibited the use of an 'interactive computer service" (i.e., the Internet) to display indecent material "in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age."521U.S. 844, 860 (1997). The Court did not consider the Internet's status as a forum for free speech, but observed that the Internet "constitutes a vast platform from which to address and hear from a world-wide audience of millions of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers. Any person or organization with a computer connected to the Internet can  'publish' information."Id. at 853. a  1489  American Library Association, 539 U.S. at 199; see also id. at 206 ("A public library does not acquire Internet terminals in order to create a public forum for Web publishers to express themselves, any more than it collects books in order to provide a public forum for the authors of books to speak.").J (quoting Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 at 868); see also id. at ("This case is one of the first this Court has taken to address the relationship between the EirstAmendment and the modern Internet. As a result, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that  1490  Packingham V. North Carolina582 U.S.  No.1 15-1194, slip op. at 4-5 (2017)  slip op. at 6  medium.").J 1491 Id. C at.  slip op. at 6, 8; see id. at 7 ("[G]iven the broad wording of the North  Carolina statute at issue, it might well bar access not only to commonplace social media websites but also to websites as varied as Amazon.com, Wasningtonpost.com, and Webmd.com.". The Court was careful to point out, however, that its opinion should not be read as barring states from enacting laws more specific than that of North Carolina, noting that "[specific criminal acts are    not protected speech even if speech is the means for their commission."Id. (citing Brandenburg V. Ohio 395U.S.444, 447-49 (1969)). Indeed, "it can be assumed that the First Amendment permits a State to enact specific, narrowly tailored laws that prohibit a sex offender from engaging in conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather  information about a minor."Id. a  1492  521 U.S. at 853. A federal court of appeals wrote: "Aspects of cyberspace may, inf fact, fit into the public forum category, although the Supreme Court has also suggested that the category is limited by tradition. Compare Forbes, 523 U.S. at 679 (reject(ing] the view that traditional public forum status extends beyond its historic confines' [to a public television station]) with Reno V. ACLU, 521U.S. 844, 851-53 (1997) (recognizing the communicative potential of the Internet, specifically the World Wide Web)." Putnam Pit, Inc. V. City of Cookeville, 221 F.3d834, 843 (6th Cir. 2000) (alternate citations to Forbes and Reno omitted). InF Putnam Pit, the city denied a private Web site's request that the city's Web site establish a hyperlink to it, even though the city's Web site had established hyperlinks to other private Web sites. The court of appeals found that the city's Web site was a nonpublic forum, but that even nonpublic forums must be viewpoint neutral, sO it remanded the case for trial on the question of whether the city's denial of a hyperlink had discriminated on the basis of viewpoint.    ORDINANCE NO580 SERIES: 2024  AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE5OF THE DOLORES MUNICIPAL CODE  PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF ALCOHOL SALES  WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes, $ 31-15-401 grants general police powers to the Board of Trustees to promulgate ordinances for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, including regulation of lands owned by the Town within its corporate boundaries.  WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes, S 31-35-402 grants general powers to the Board of Trustees to regulate festivals, events and the sale of alcohol and promulgate ordinances for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, including regulation ofl lands owned by the Town within its  corporate boundaries.  WHEREAS, there is a need to amend and modernize the Town's ordinances pertaining to WHEREAS, thel Board ofTrustees, in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare ofthe public in order balance the benefits and burdens that come with the Town'si increasing popularity of special events, and changes to the manner in which alcohol is commonly sold, wishes to amend  the manner in which special event permits and sale of alcohol are issued.  Section 5.04.040 and add additional section oft the Dolores Municipal Code  NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY TOWN OF DOLORES BOARD OF  TRUSTEES THAT the following provisions shall be added to the Dolores Municipal Code: Section 1. The following sections are added to the Dolores Municipal Code:  Section 5.24.150. - Festival permits.  A. Permit required. A licensee who wishes to host a festival shall first obtain aj permit from the State and the Town, except a limited winery or winery licensee need not obtain a festival permit from the Town. A licensee applying for both a festival permit and a special event permit from the State need B. Eligible licensees. The following license types are eligible to apply for a festival permit:  not obtain a festival permit from the Town.  1. Beer and wine. 2. Brew pub. 3. Distillery pub. 4. Hotel and restaurant. 5. Manufacturer. 6. Tavern.  7. Vintner's: restaurant; and  1Page    8. Wholesaler.  C.F Participation. The licensee who hosts the festival shall be the licensee who files the application for the festival permit; provided that other licensees of the types described in subsection BI hereof D. Number. Each festival permit shall allow the licensee to hold nine festivals during the 12-month  may. jointly participate under the permit. period following the permit isi issued.  E. Hours. In no case shall a festival be held for longer than 72 hours.  F.A Appication-Application for issuance of a festival permit. The applicant for a festival permit  must:  1. Specify the licensed premises for the festival to be held; and  2.1 File the application with the Town Clerk at least 30 days before the festival is to bel held. 3. Identify controlled access and boundaries to the festival for alcohol consumption, comply with security requirements deemed necessary by the Town, agree to adherence to nuisance issues, 4. Pay the required application fee as set by the fee schedule pursuant to Section 2.34.010 of the  including trash removal and noise.  Code.  G.) Denial. The Town Clerk may deny an application for the following reasons:  1.A documented history ofl liquor violations. 2. The filing of an incomplete or late application; or  3.A finding that the application, if granted, would result in violation of State or local laws, rules, or H. Supplemental applications. To hold any additional festival after the initial festival, which was described in the initial application, the permittee must notify the State and the Town Clerk at least 30 days prior to the additional festival being held of an intent to host a subsequent festival. Ift the Town is notified at least 30 days in advance of the subsequent festival, the subsequent festival is presumed to be approved unless the Town Clerk has grounds to deny the subsequent festival  regulations.  provided by subsection G ofthis section. Chapter 5.25- Entertainment District Section 5.25.010. - Definitions.  As used in this Chapter, the following words shall have the following meanings:  Common consumption areai means aj pedestrian areal located wholly within the Entertainment District and approved by thel Local Licensing Authority that uses physical barriers to close the areai to motor Common Consumption AreaLawmeans Sections4 443-301C1),44.3-300,44.3-910of.he Colorado  vehicle traffic and limit pedestrian access. Revised Statutes, as amended.  2IPage    Entertainment District means the Town of] Dolores Entertainment District with a size no more than one hundred (100) acres and containing at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of premises licensed as at tavern, hotel and restaurant, brew pub or vintner's restaurant at the time said District is Licensee means a person to whom a license is granted by the Local Licensing Authority to manufacture or sell alcoholic beverages as provided under the Colorado Liquor Code. Local Licensing Authority means the Board ofTrustees oft the Town ofDolores.  created.  Promotional Association means an association that isi incorporated within the State of Colorado that organizes and promotes entertainment activities within a common consumption area, is organized or authorized by two (2) or more persons who own or lease property within the Entertainment District In addition to the definitions provided above, the other defined terms in Section 44-3-103, C.R.S.  and is certified by the Local Licensing Authority. are incorporated into this Article by reference.  Section 5.25.020. - Creation of entertainment district and general requirements.  A. In order to exercise the Town's local option to allow common consumption areas: in the Town and to effectuate the purposes and intent of Section 44-3-301(11), C.R.S., there is hereby designated the "Town of Dolores Entertainment District" whose boundaries are Central Avenue to the north, Third Avenue to the west, Railroad Avenue to the South; and Sixth Avenue to the east which is  intended to include all properties within and adjoining said streets.  B.  Properties may bei included or excluded from thel Entertainment District by resolutions oft the Board ofTrustees. By establishing the Entertainment District, the Town authorizes the licensing of designated common consumption areas in which alcoholic beverages may be sold and consumed subject to the requirements oft this Article, the Code and the Common Consumption Area Law. C. The Local Licensing Authority has the following powers with respect to common  consumption areas and promotional associations:  1. 2. 3.  Designate one (1) or more common consumption areas; Certify or decertify a promotional association.  Authorize, de-authorize or refuse to authorize or reauthorize a licensee's attachment of  licensed establishment to a common consumption area.  4.  Impose reasonable conditions of approval on the licensing of common consumption areas, certification of promotional associations or the attachment of licensed establishments to common  consumption area; and  3Page    5. Law.  Exercise all powers necessary to effectuate the purposes ofthe Common Consumption Area  D. The standards for common consumption area licenses issued to promotional associations shall be in addition to all other standards applicable under this Article, the Code and the Colorado  Liquor Code. E.  Decisions on applications for common consumption areas, promotional associations and inclusions and exclusions from the common consumption area shall be made by the Local Licensing Authority within thirty (30) days of receipt of a complete application therefor. A decision to deny any such application by the Local Licensing Authority shall be in writing and shall be provided to  the applicant within five (5) business days of the decision having been rendered.  Section 5.25.030. - Communal outdoor dining areas.  A. Licensees eligible. The following types of licensees are eligible to have a communal outdoor  dining area: 1. Beer and wine licenses.  2. Beer wholesaler that operates a sales room authorized under C.R.S. $ 44-3-407()0)0), as  amended. 3. Brew pub; 4.1 Distillery pub; 6. Hotel and restaurant; 7.Limited winery;  5. Fermented malt beverage retailer licensed for consumption on the premises;  8. Lodging and entertainment facility;  9.1 Manufacturer that operates a sales room authorized under CRS.43-022erc. as amended;  10. Optional premises; 11. Tavern; and 12. Vintner's restaurant.  B. Authorized. Communal outdoor dining areas are hereby authorized provided that at least two licensees have applied to share the communal outdoor dining area, and each licensee has:  1.C Obtained a permit from the State Licensing Authority;  2. Obtained the following approvals from the State Licensing Authority and the local licensing i. For the attaching oft the liquor license oft the licensee to the communal outdoor dining area; and  authority:  4IPage    ii. For a modification oft the licensee premises to include the communal outdoor dining area.  3. Established that the communal outdoor dining area is within 1,000: feet ofthe permanent licensed 4. Have ai right to occupy the premises sought for the communal outdoor dining area; and 5. Established the physical boundaries of the communal outdoor dining area in ai manner to assure to the satisfaction of the local licensing authority that alcohol beverages will be kept within the 6. Paid the required application fee as set by the fee schedule pursuant to Section 2.34.010 of the C. Special event permittees. Special event permittees may hold a special event in a communal outdoor dining area, provided that such permit holder agrees, in writing, to comply with all State and local liquor laws, rules, and regulations and has written permission of the licensees of the communal outdoor dining area tol hold the special event ini the communal outdoor dining area. D. State rules. Each licensee with an approved communal outdoor dining area shall comply with all Section 2. The Town Trustees hereby finds, determine, and declare that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the Town ofl Dolores, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare oft the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The Trustees further determine that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be Section 3. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held tol bei invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability ofany such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any ofthe remaining provisions ofthis Ordinance. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. The Town ofDolores Board of Trustees hereby finds, determines and declares this ordinance is necessary for immediate PUBLIC HEARING. This ordinance shall be considered for second or final reading on the gth day of September 2024, in the Town Board Chambers in' Town Hall, Dolores, Colorado, at which time  premises of each liçensee;  physical boundaries oft the communal outdoor dining area.  Code.  applicable State rules, as amended.  attained.  preservation of the health, safety and welfare ofi its citizens.  and place all persons may appear and bel heard concerning the same.  5Page    Passed adopted and approved on the first reading this gth day of September 2024.  DOLORES BOARD OF TRUSTEES:  By:  Mayor Chris Holkestad  Attest: By  Town Clerk Tammy Neely  Passed adopted and approved on the second and final reading this 23rd day of September 2024.  DOLORES BOARD OF TRUSTEES:  By:  Mayor Chris Holkestad  Attest:  By:  Town Clerk Tammy Neely  6Page    TOWN OF DOLORES ORDINANCE NO581 SERIES 2024  AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF TOWN-OWNED PROPERTY  LOCATED AT 47 Railroad Ave., Dolores, Colorado  WHEREAS, the Town Trustees findi that it has no present governmental use for certain real property owned by the Town, located at 47 Railroad Ave., Dolores, Colorado and known as the Dolores Fire Station and legally described ini the attached deed (the Property").  WHEREAS, the Town Trustees find that the Property should be donated to the Dolores WHEREAS, CRS Section 31-15-713 provides that voter is approval is required before the Town may sell or otherwise dispose of such real property that used for a governmental purpose at  Fire Protection District for the betterment oft the community.  a general or special election.  WHEREAS, CRS Section 33-14.5-101 provides that any municipality may determine at a regular or special election to meet the publication requirements 31-16-106 by publishing ordinances by title only rather than by publishing the ordinance in full at a special election where  other issues are present on the ballot.  WHEREAS, the Board ofTrustees referred the question of whether said property would be donated to the Dolores Fire Protection District to thei registered electors ofthe Town ofDolores. WHEREAS, the electors approved by majority vote the donation of the Property at the November 7,2 2023, Coordinated Election the results of which have been officially certified by the  County Clerk of Montezuma County, Colorado.  WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes $ 31-15-713(b) authorizes the Town to sell real property, by ordinance, upon such terms and conditions as the Town Trustees may determine at a  regular or special meeting.  WHEREAS, the Town Trustees hereby determines that conveyance of the Property as set WHEREAS, the Town Trustees has determined that it is in the best interests of the Town to donate the Property upon the terms and conditions set forth in the attached Special Warranty  forth in this Ordinance is compatible with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and vision.  Deed to the Dolores Fire Protection District.  WHEREAS, the Town Trustees determine that it is in the public interest to include a NOW,THEREFORE, BEITORDAINEDI BYTHETOWNTRUSTES OF THETOWN  reversionary clause in the Special Warranty Deed. OF DOLORES, COLORADO, THAT:  1    Section 1. That the Mayor and' Town Manager arel hereby authorizedi to executei the attached Special Warranty Deed and to execute each and every other document necessary or desirable to effectuate the transfer of the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, or to such other person or entity willing to purchase the property on similar terms or  conditions.  Section 2. All other ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or conflicting with this ordinance, or any portion hereof, arel hereby repealed tot the extent ofsuchi inconsistency or conflict. Section 3. Safety Clause. The Town Trustees hereby find, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the Town, that it is] promulgated for1 thel health, safety, and welfare ofthe public, that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare, and that this ordinance bears ai rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained.  Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective five (5) days after final  publication.  INTRODUCED AND READ on first reading at the regular meeting oft the Trustees ofthe Town of Dolores on September 9, 2024, at Dolores, Colorado. Passed adopted and approved on the first  reading this gth day of September 2024. DOLORES BOARD OF TRUSTEES:  By:  Attest: By:  PUBLIC HEARING. This ordinance shall be considered for second or final reading on the 231d day of September 2024, in the Town Board Chambers in' Town Hall, Dolores, Colorado, at which time  and place all persons may appear and be heard concerning the same.  Passed adopted and approved on the second and final reading this 24th day of September 2024.  DOLORES BOARD OF TRUSTEES:  By:  Attest: By:_  2    SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED  THIS DEED is executed on the date set forth below, and is made between, the Town of Dolores, a Colorado statutory town, the "Grantor", and the Dolores Fire Protection District whose address is471 Railroad Ave., Dolores, Colorado, the "Grantee".  WITNESS, that the Grantor, for andi in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuablec consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, conveysandconfirms unto the Grantee, andt the Grmte'shcisandasign: forever all the real property, together with any improvements thereon, located in the County of Lot 3 of the DOLORES FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SUBDIVISION according to the plat thereof of record. Town of Dolores. County of Montezuma. State of Colorado. RESERVING UNTO THE GRANTOR aj perpetual easement to construct, maintain, repair and RESERVING UNTOTHE GRANTOR ai reverteri interest that in thee event that the within described property shall no longer used as a fire station or similar public purpose then title to the property shall TOGETHER with all and singular thel hereditaments: and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, thereversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate,right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever oft the Grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, untoi the Granteea andi the Grantee's S heirsanda assigns forever. The Grantor, for the Grantor and the Grantor'sl heirs and assigns, does covenant: and agree thatt the Grantor shall and will WARRANT AND: FOREVER DEFEND the above descriedpremises, int the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee and thel heirs and assigns oft the Grantee, against all and every person or persons claiming the whole or any part thereof, by, through or under the Grantor except and subjectt to all easements and rights IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above.  Montezuma and State of Colorado, described as follows:  replace the Town's storm water, domestic water and sewer lines.  revert to the Town of Dolores.  bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances;  of way of record.  STATE OF COLORADO County of Montezuma  ) )ss. )  Chris Holkestad, Mayor Town of Dolores Leigh Reeves, Manager Town of Dolores  The foregoingi instrument wasacknowledged before me this dayof  2024, by Chris    Holkestad and Leigh Reeves. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires:  Notary Public  Page 2    DoLoREs FiRe PD  OF DOLO  fe  -  On September 3, 2024 a public hearing was held for the Planning Commission to review the subdivision application from the Dolores Fire Protection District to claim the property that has been under their use and control and which was approved by vote majority in the November 11, 2023 The Commissioners recommend to the Board of Trustees to approve the preliminary plat for the Fire Department Subdivision with the following findings and conditions and motion with votes: Chairperson Robinson moved and Commissioner Kelly seconded to recommend that the Town Board approve the preliminary plat for the Dolores Fire Protection District Subdivision on property located in the N1/2 of Section 16, T37N R15W, NMPM, as submitted by the Dolores Fire  coordinated election.  Protection District, following findings and conditions:  Findings:  1. The physical arrangement of the subdivision is appropriate for the terrain, existing and 2. The street right of way and alignment is appropriate for the proposed subdivision with the 3. With the conditions below, easements are adequate for the existing and any proposed future 4. The proposed subdivision meets all requirements of the land use code and comprehensive 5. The notice of public hearing was published in the newspaper and ont thet town website, posted on site and in the town hall public posting board, and mailed to the 250-foot neighbors on  proposed lands uses and zoning. proposed dedication.  uses. plan.  August 15,2024.  Conditions:  1. AlL requirements of utility providers, Town departments, CDOT and affected districts must be satisfied, as outlined in adopted Town Codes and other regulatonydocuments. 2. Prior to recordation of the final plat, the plat shall be revised to dedicate easements for 3. Prior to recordation of thei final plat, the plat shall be revised to ensure the southern portion of the property line between lots 2 and 3 is adequate for Town sewer needs and the northern  existing gas lines.  601 Central Ave, POJ Box 6301 Dolores. CO. 81323 Ph. 970-882-7720 fax. 970-882-7466 https:il ompotalburscolomalagow    OF DOLO  94  boundary has adequate easements fort the water main.  4. The ordinance required for this land transfer includes a revert clause in the event the Fire  Protection District ever moves away. Yes: Robinson, Tucker, Nemanic, Kelly and Powell.  No: none  In addition to these conditions andi findings was the local gas company's request to include the gas lines  withini the subdivision ont the final plat.  601 Central Ave, PO Box 6301 Dolores, CO.81323 Ph. 970-882-7720 fax. 970-882-7466 https:!l lowmofdoborescolomangor    Dolores, Colorado)  LAND USE APPLICATION  OVERVIEW  This form provides the basic information about a project proposal. This application form is only one of the items required for a complete project submittal. Iti is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all other required materials are submitted. Iti is also ther responsibility of the applicant to clearly demonstrate through narrative, visual representations, and other materials that the proposed activity complies with the Town of Dolores' Land Use Code. Incomplete or substardard applications may cause delays. All applications shall include digital files as well as the hard copy unless otherwise determined by staff.  PROJECT TYPE (select one or more) Administrative. Adjustment Administrative Detemination Annexation  Major Subdivision Plat, Preliminary Major Subdivision Plat, Final Plat Amendment Planned Unit Development Sign Permit Site Plan-Revow Wrons Special Exception Special Exception. Subdivision Temporary Use Permit Variance Variance, Subdivision Vested Property Right Zoning Development! Permit  Appeai of Administrative Determination Areas and Activities of Statel Interest (1041) Comprenensive Plan Amendment Conditional Usel Permit Grading and Erosion Control Permit Historic Preservation LUC Interpretation LUC1 Text Amendment Location and Extent Review Minor Subdivision Plat Major Subdivision! Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECTLOCATION:  Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning) orl LUC Text Amendment  Other:  Dolores Fre Pept Peadectics Dsto Subdvrsin  PROJECTSUMMARY (Additional details must be includedi in other application materials) Touster of leud fnx Towr of Dolorss  Doloces Fin Protetion Distct.    LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY ID Number: 5359/620003   SITE INFORMATION CURRENT ZONING: P-2 CURRENT USE:  5359620003 PROPOSED ZONING: PROPOSED USE:  PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION  APPLICANT:  Dolores FuE Pokcdim Dste Teg Mntgaery  ADDRESS: Boy 599 Dalores,Co 8/303ADDRESS:  PHONE: 970-881-4096  PHONE: 970-749-8145 E-MAIL: taegedalvafizog  E-MAIL:  PROPERTY OWNER(S) (Authorization from all property ownersi isr requiredif different from the applicant):  ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AUTHORIZATION accurate to the fullest extent of their knowledge. Applicant: AE  The undersigned authorizes the Town of Dolores to proceed with processing this application under ther requirements oft the Town of Dolores Land Use Code (LUC). The undersigned acknowledges that thei information provided herein is The accuracy of this information is the applicant"' S responsibility and improper notification of adjacent property  owners, when applicable, cap result inydelayed processing of this application.  Date: 6z6/2o2f  DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Application Recelved By: lug Reckes Fee Required: Waived  Date: 62624 Project DEPDS.LLAsA  Paid On:  Receipt#  Application Accepted as Complete for Processing on: 7-79-31    O0V-0100 VWnZELNON'S MSLN" 917  HLNIA ABANISV 3HHS $380100  ONLLVI GINV: ONIARANIS    USA-DOLORES PROJECT C/O USFS-TRES RIOS OFFICE 29211 HWY184 DOLORES, CO. 81323 PETTINGILL, WILLIAM ERLEL.& FRANK 493E.1 100N. RICHFIELD, UT, 84701 ADAMS, ANNE D. POBOX966 SILVERTON, CO, 81433  DOLORES CEMETERY ASSOC POBOX67 DOLORES, CO, 81323 DUFUR, JESS DANIEL P.O.BOX885 CORTEZ, CO, 81321 WOLF, MOLLIEL. POBOX355 DOLORES,C0,81323  HAAS-VAUGHN, PAULINE & VAUGHN, BRIAN 33817 EAGLET RD MARANA, AZ, 85653 DUFUR, MARYC. POBOX1 DOLORES, CO, 81323