Please enter the meeting passcode followed by the pound sign. The meeting passcode is invalid. Please re-enter your passcode followed by the page code. You are in the meeting now. Okay, and I'll ask you to unmute. Hit pound. All right. Okay, I think we are up and running. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. Technology is always our friend until it doesn't work the way we want it to. All right. The agenda is as written. In that the last agenda item was added late and I don't think it's proper. I am not going to move to approve the agenda unless it is removed. Okay, Commissioner Ells. Whistle is getting his hearing enhancement plugged in. So. I will go ahead and move the agenda is presented. I'll second that, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Aye. All right, consent items. We have the minutes from our meeting of last week June 25 and approval of actually all it's all we have is approval of minutes. We don't have consent and approval of vouchers for this week. Would you like to sever either one of those? They aren't listed as consent. I guess they are. They just aren't lined up very well. I would move to approve the consent items. I would second there's one. There are two different bills in the vouchers that were under scrutiny so I would withhold those two but other than I would move. Which two please? These are two that we haven't got sign contracts back on. Which two are they? Value West and M a appraisal So you're going after to that the assessors office has we have not gotten sign contracts on those two and they have yet to come back and they were supposed to have been It's just to find out that you're going after the assessors office Whatever you want to say sir there are two contracts that are unsigned, that are in effect, that are not valid. To my knowledge, trying to find out. Okay, so we have a motion and second on the table. All in favor. Aye. Aye. All right, consideration and or decision on the following items. Number one is approve or deny a resolution approving an application to rezone 36.18 acres from residential to agricultural in the at the address of 8140 county road 90 in late George. We heard this land use case last week and the resolution was a result of that meeting. I think it's a really good move. The area is in an area that should be agricultural. So I would move that we approve the resolution. I would second to put it on the table. Conversation or comments? Commissioner Whistle. Thank you Madam Chair. Yeah, I believe this is a good opportunity for the property owners who came before us and explained their views and their vision for what they wish to do. I think it meets the flavor of Lake George. It adds to the opportunities for small groups together and to utilize their existing 36 plus acres. They had talked about adjacent forest service land but until they obtain permits and so forth, that's not a possibility. So with that, I think it's a great project and support it. All right. Any other comments? All right. We have a motion in second. All in favor. Hi. Hi. Aye. And resolution number? 28. All right. I'm blue pen. Thank you. Thank you. Next item is a resolution approving an application to approve a conditional use for a conference and retreat facility at 8140 County Road 90 in Lake George. The first resolution was to change the zoning to agriculture, and this one is to allow them to have a conditionally used conference and retreat facility. Yeah, Madam Chair, I'd like to note there were some conditions on it. The application was, I think it's a good application. They did state that they will not be using the well water from their house because they can't for the facility. So any water that is going to be used at the facility will be trucked in. Other than that, I think it's a it's a good use for the property and gives them a way to. To gain a little additional income. So I would move to approve. Second. Just a comment, though. I don't see, I'm pulling up the, from the last meeting, I do not see the conditions that were carried through on this resolution. So let me just pull up. Yeah, check to make sure because I know they stated specifically that they would not be using their well water and then maybe we don't need to do anything. Maybe that's a DWR issue that would go through them. Yes, Commissioner Whistle. I think the water issue is simply because they have a domestic well because of 35-acre track that was created prior to 72. They chose not to amend their well permit. They wanted to keep it whole and then they made the decision to truck in potable water for any conference facility or activities outside of that and they want to retain the uses of their well for their historic uses of their house their livestock and their garden if any and that's available available Allowable under D&R Well permit guidelines and limitations and so I don't know whether it's appropriate legal. Well, if I understand correctly, the use of the well is governed by state law. So they're not legally allowed to use the well for anything other than the domestic purposes and the livestock. So it's not appropriate, I lead to add a condition. Right, since it is not under our purview, and I think that if they choose to put in a system is what they discussed for the retreat facility then that's their ability to do that. So Commissioner Elzner, are you good with that? Yeah, let me go answer this a second. We used to as part of these resolutions where we were issuing conditional uses. We would always have a clause in there that would say that everything that was presented by the applicant at the hearing was incorporated. Just as for this, they promised us that they aren't going to use their well water. They're going to have a truck in so we used to have the thing that that was part of the hearing and that would cover us You know, I hate to have them come back and say well we didn't know or have someone who bought the property later Discover that they Can't use that well. So I mean, I'll accept this one as it is now, but I'm kind of curious why that wasn't included in this resolution. Well, and is it, isn't it true that anything that's on the record and said during the hearing is pertinent to the case? That's a great question. That was the case. That's a great question. That was the practice I do recall now as mentioned by Commissioner Ellsner and I think we will go back and review the land use regulations to see if they include that as a statement of the law in Park County and we'll bring that. We'll give you that answer at a later time. Yeah, well, I know our previous county attorney said that was a good thing to have in there. Thank you. Yeah, I agree with that. All right. So we have the motion and second on the table. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. And I gather that is resolution number 29. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda. Situated here. Is a prover deny resolution approving an application to approve a conditional use? Oops, never mind, we just did that one. Approver Deny resolution approving an application to rezone 5.94 acres from commercial to mixed use in four mile fishing club and that is as addressed 1,000 trout road in fair play. And we heard this land use case last week as well. Commissioner Whistle. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, the applicants came to us. They are from a real estate background and they looked at this almost six acre commercial tract in FormOffishing Club as an opportunity. So what their plan is is to put in a barnuminium, I'm going to use that generically, but basically storage space contractors, trade people, first floor and living quarters, second floor. They're looking at a fairly significant investment and with that, that will alleviate some of the impact that I'm aware of in fair play for specifically because our tradespeople just don't have any place to stage or work out of or headquarter from, if you will. And this is similar to what some counties down in their airport area. They're old airport, not the airport now. But and so it will really enhance our trade people space and I think that's a worthy and worthwhile project and I support it. Mr. Ellsner. Yeah, I really love mixed use. This is a good place to have mixed use. I wish we had more mixed use so as I supported. Was that a motion Mr. Ellsner? I could move that, yes sir. Second. All right, and I'll just make one comment. From what we understood at the hearing that there is a demand for this type of work and housing combination. And so we are glad that somebody wants to supply it. So all in favor. All right. Aye. And that is resolution number 30. Correct. Thank you very much. Next item is approve or deny resolution approving a 60 hour outdoor event to be held on a 39.86 acre tract in the Northwest Quarter, North East quarter of section 23 of township 13 are 76 in Hartzell and it does not have an address It is just a meets and bounds property and we heard this land use case last week as well Mr. Whizzle. Thank you Madam Chair This is I'm not surprised it's not addressed because we're talking about heart soul ranch, heart soul springs ranch, a states of Colorado, a states of the world and other environments. We saw in the demonstration of the application that you have to want to get to this place. You have to really travel diligently to want to get to this place. You have to really travel diligently to want to get to this place. And so the applicants have done this in different venues around the country, but try a small, if you will, a small event last year on a different property. But this property, zone properly, it's appropriately accessed. They went through all of the conditions that we had, which is a road maintenance agreement. So if there's any damage on some of our not traveled very well county roads, before, during and after the event, they will work with road and bridge and have a letter to do those repairs. And so with that, this is kind of an experiment. It'll kind of bleed into the next one we're going to have that we have tabled. But for this event, it appears that the emergency services departments and agencies are aware. They have made contingency plans. The applicants have guaranteed us they will follow over rules and regulations and with those parameters I think this is worth a yay vote. So I would move this for consideration. Thank you. The issue, there are five conditions on this. And just to note, the typically, if you look at all the genders, they would say a conditionally approving something, which would tell people that there were conditions attached to the approval and there are. So, you know, the approval is no-ember producing flames. And if there are anything that Artsle Fire will close the thing, road conditions will be assessed that we prior to make sure that it's safe for people to get in and out. Not that we have rain sometimes that make our roads very mess. Venetendees must remain on the private easement, so they're trying to keep down the trespassing. Also, the noise is limited. They have to be quiet or quieter between 12 a.m. and 3 a.m. and if the noise goes above that then they will be cited for violation. That's different from our normal noise ordinance which doesn't go till just 3 a.m. usually it goes till 7 a.m. but everybody apparently was okay with that and right of way work permit will be obtained from Park Park County Public Works. So those are the conditions and with those I would second emotion if that was made. Yes and the applicant I think was very agreeable and happy to work with heart-sull fire To work out all of these issues. So all in favor hi, hi And that is 31 Thank you very much All right next item is approval deny bids for the Terriol Klein Ranch rehabilitation phase 1b All right, next item is Approver Deny, Bids for the Terriol Client Ranch, Rehabilitation Phase 1B, and that is the Territorial Building and Client Ranch. Yeah, Client Ranch has been near and dear to my heart since I was really first elected. I was privileged enough to go to an event put on by history Colorado where they named the Klein Ranch is one of the most endangered historical places in Park County. It's been a battle to get to this point. I am hoping that we can continue to restore that building because I'd love to have someone, some future commissioner be able to go to history Colorado's meeting where they say, do the celebration of a place that's been saved because it is a beautiful ranch. It, the inside, everything about it. So anything we can do to get to restore it to its original shape and then get to restore it to its original shape and then also to make it more available to the public right now Klein Ranch doesn't have a lot of things that the public can do and I'm hoping that if we continue on this way we can have something that would be open to the public for them to look at So I would move approval of the contract I would move approval of the contract. I would second that. All right, thank you. And just to give a little bit more background information, this will be awarded to deep roots craftsmen who have done work on behalf of history historical buildings in here in the county. And it is being funded with state historic funds as well as the South Park Heritage Fund that we get from the federal government. So it is not coming out of county's pocket at all and it is to stabilize the foundation and do a couple a little bit more work so they can take the wrapping off the building, which would be really exciting. And I was wrong on the territorial description. It's deemed Spanish eclectic, which is a very unusual style and not very common style at all in Colorado. So it's really cool that the work is being done to preserve this building. So any other comments? All in favor? Hi. Hi. All right, next item is continued deliberation of the outdoor event and that is land use number A24-022 which is, property is 40, 47 county County Road 68 in Bailey. The applicant is requesting to hold an outdoor camping event for three days and nights with interactive art, music and performance. And the applicant is David Wellhouser. And this is the else went event. So we are here to deliberate. Mr. Whistle. Thank you, Madam Chair. I pondered this since we tabled at the end of last week's meeting in what's appropriate. We have closed public testimony so at that point we are deliberating amongst ourselves like it's me. I am torn with this application because of some of the comments that the uphoses made as well as just the general area of this event. Having been here for a fair piece of country time, I have observed activities on the subject range for at least 10, 15 years, at least. And there's always generally some comments of opposition or opponents to what those activities are. We're talking about a large property, thousands of acres. This particular event, if I recall correctly, is supposedly to be held on a thousand of those acres. The access is off county road 68. We are aware anecdotally talking to our pub works people that 68 is in really rough shape right now. They spend a significant amount of time on it getting ready for the hundo. Lots of men in material actually rented some equipment to do that and now after all of that work and then the Wellington Lake travel is back to really rough horse board surface. So with that there was a mention of fire that was brought up and that has a great concern this event as I recall is to be held in September. I have a lot of time between now and September, but we have no guideline or insight on conditions. And with the prior application we just did, it made some sense to me because of the fire event that it would be reasonable to limit it or not, and I'll throw it out there, just put it on the table to prohibit based upon conditions. So if conditions were terrible in the eyes of Plac Canyon fire, would they or do they want the responsibility to call that event? Hartzel fire took that responsibility on our prior one. Plac Canyon has signed off with the knowledge of this event. And so that's just more of a question than I put out on the table for us. And I think that's one of the biggest concerns, Commissioner Ellsner was certainly, on point with his concern for fires, and I don't take or discount that. I mean, I think that's one of the biggest issues we have in a densely populated populated area is what's the risk and is that risk mitigated or is it even worth that risk? So with that, I'll stop. All right, thank you, Commissioner Elzner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's becoming a misuse of what our regulations were intended. One, any fire period. We have a lot of residents in Park County that are having a lot of difficulty getting fire insurance. The threat of a fire, you're talking about the most populated portion of Park County. You're talking about subdivisions that have one way in, one way out. The road is basically, it's two ways out, but if there would be a fire, you can head back to 285 or you can take a really nasty road all the way down to Wellington Lake and some of those other back roads which really can't sustain any type of traffic. If something would happen at the event, I don't think the event is planned in a way with the way they're setting up, they could have something happen and then you end up all with all the people at the event trapped. I just think that, you know, 25 years ago when Park County and that area may have had six or seven thousand people. I could go along with it, but we're in an area that's got 12,000 people. We're in an area where we have subdivisions that only have one way in and one way out. As far as I'm concerned, I think it's totally inappropriate. And to say, well, we'll check later on to see what happens. Fire, I mean, it can change up here rapidly. If you take a look at some of the fires, I mean, the Marshall fire, oh, gee, who would have thought you would have taken out of 1100 homes in a suburban area that quickly? Well, conditions change really quickly. I have seen a microverse up here that nobody thought would be coming that have knocked down trees. We've had actually a couple of tornadoes in Lake George. We don't know what's going to happen suddenly. Anybody that camps up here, anybody that back, back is up here, that pays attention, knows that the weather can change very quickly. I've been watching the forecast for the last week, just to see how close they were. Ah, they aren't anywhere near what goes on. I think one, the event is too long. Two, I think they are allowing too many people in. And I question when they say, oh, we're going to have approximately 500 people when they say, we're going to have 350 cars. These type of events usually one person doesn't drive. You're going to have two to four people in a car. So the 500 that they're saying, I think that's not being really truthful. I think it's just ingenuous. I just don't think that this type of an event has a place in Park County. The West has been drying out. If they want to have something like this in an area that's got grassland, that is a lot easier to protect because our grass and soil park doesn't grow very tall, that's fine. But they are in an area that is surrounded by forest that is close to the most densely populated area of park county. And I don't think we should allow this to go on. The stress it puts on a lot of our residents, I think is extraordinary, because fire right now is on everybody's mind. And the loss of fire insurance is on everybody's mind. I don't think we should encourage someone to have this type of an event in this area. So I am totally against the event. Thank you, and I'll make a couple comments. I thought long and hard about this yesterday and thought long and hard looking at my notes about the comments we received last week. And it's a three day camping event for the attendees, but then it's going to be 75 people camping a day before for setup and 60 people camping the day after for tear down. So it's really a five day camping event. And the three days will be 500 people plus or minus. We don't really know what that number is actually going to be. And we do not know what the weather condition September, it'll be September 19 through 24th. So it could be usually dry. A lot of times we're headed for an Indian summer then. We don't know what the conditions will be, but I did come up with quite a few conditions that we could put on this if we wanted to approve it. And I'm just going to read them real quick because I thought that they were pertinent and made sense if we want to. But my one comment is this is a vent solely built around fire, which just is pretty crazy for Park County and any community where we really do have concern about fire and working hard with the forest service to mitigate fire throughout the forest and cut a lot of trees down and set to try to reduce the fire danger. So if there is no fire ban in effect, this is number one. If there's no fire ban in effect, Placcan fire will inspect the specific area where the event is to be held. The week of the event to determine if fire should be allowed per the application. Should there be any fires reported other than the application lists, then Plac Canyon Fire Department may shut the event down. And PC, Plac Canyon Fire Department, word is final. I mean, that's, I'm just trying to figure out a way to get there. And if we decide not to get there, I mean, that's what we're talking about. Yeah, and my issue, and I understand where you're trying to head in, you know, on kind of against a period. But how many times have you looked at the weather bureau, and you say, hey, there's five day forecast, it looks fine, it looks fine. And then boom, he ended up with a red flag warning, Red Flag Warning triggers a fire ban, but it happens like for tomorrow. It doesn't happen for, oh, next week, these things come up very quickly. So now, what are you going to do? You've got people on the road coming to an event that has now been canceled because of the fire band. If they want to have the event find a place that is not close to a densely populated area as far as park county is concerned and not in the middle of a forest which is being stressed because of the long term drought that we've had. Right, thank you. I hear you loud and clear. So the second comment that was made that I wanted to just bring forth as a potential condition is the access roads. And I was, I've been a big proponent and it worked in somewhere I lived long ago about one way in, one way out, or having really good emergency exit availability. And the access road going in is not a two-lane road. It is a one-lane road with pull-off bubbles. And that's the primary road in, which is very concerning because if an emergency vehicle is coming in there big and people are panicked and trying to get out. That could be disaster. And second, the alternate emergency evacuation route is I have been told a very bad road. So this is what I'd like to say is a potential condition too. The access road and emergency evacuation route road must be assessed by Plac Canyon Fire District well ahead of the event and report to the BOCC of one the suitability of two-way traffic on the access road and two the suitability of the evacuation route for a standard passenger vehicle. If either road fails to meet the needed standards the event will be cancelled. I would say if you're going to do that, you would have to add, okay, you can have one vehicle on it. One vehicle is fine. They're trying to get out. We have a fire truck trying to get in. What type of mess do we have if you've got a four mile stretch or a three mile stretch where they're backed up? I mean, we they had the event where everybody parked on the road because the road got washed out and that became a mess. So you're in a position of you can't you've got to have a road that can support two lanes if you're going to put that many people back there because they can't get out if the fire departments trying to get in or the fire department is going to have to sit at the top of the road and wait for everybody to get out of there before they can go address the fire which I think is totally wrong. Right and that's why I said suitability of two way traffic because two way traffic is really important everywhere in the county. and everywhere in the county. So, and then number three was if both roads are suitable, the roads will be assessed the week before the event to confirm they are still acceptable per the above item two because of washouts, which happened before that caused other traffic challenges. And then number three, event attendees may only park on the event land and may not park on county or access roads, which happened before. And number four, if there are any complaints about noise between about noise, they will cease. So those are just throwing them on the table for conversation. Commissioner Whistle. Thank you Madam Chair. You know I've really thought about this and I'm trying to come to what I think is a reasonable common sense solution. Conditions are great but yet when you get to the situation and they're talking about 350 cars I think it's rational to think more than one person per car. We're looking at somewhere less than 1,000 people potentially, between 500 and 1,000, we have to have the permit and the hearing process for anything above 500 as I recall. So with that, maybe it would just be easier if we just deny. And not try to put things in there that are going to be difficult. I'm thinking about Plecane and Fire and their responsibility. They're aware of it. They've signed off on it. They have their bottom line rules. I'm sure with applicants, but maybe the thing to do is just to die and let them try again. If that's a motion, I would second that motion. I would make that a motion. Second. Okay, and you know, I threw these potential conditions on the table just trying to find a way to move forward if there was interest. But I agree an event to be held solely around fire in a tree remote area with all consider subpar access roads and evacuation roads. I'm right there with you guys. All in favor? I would like to make one more comment. Yes please. And this is kind of a comment directed out of people that want to put on these type of events. This event would cost Park County Road and Bridge time and effort probably on the roads that they may not have. It could cost the fire district additional work. You don't know about other costs. And then I look at it and say, what benefit is coming into Park County? I'll guarantee you they aren't gonna stop in Bayley to pick up their supplies because most of them will be coming from Denver where it's a lot cheaper. They aren't gonna be buying gas up here because it's cheaper in Denver. So what benefit does Park County get out of this? So, if they're going to be running events, they need to look at, it's going to cost the county money, sheriff department, all of that. It's going to cost us resources. And yet, Park County gets absolutely nothing for it, rather than a very minimal fee to file it. So I just would like to have anybody that is interested in putting an event on up here. Take a look at Park County and say, this is going to be good for Park County why. It's going to bring up business. You guys are going to have your stores will be busier while I've talked to people. Elsecowince has not brought that type of business anywhere that anybody can remember. So just in the future, please, if you're going to put on an event, take a look at all these things and that's it. I'm high. Any other comments? All right, so we have a motion on the table to deny this application. All in favor? Hi. Hi. All right. And Mr. Wellhouser, I see you have your hands up, but we had stopped public comment at our last meeting and tabled this only for our deliberation. And so I'm sorry that you're not going to be able to comment here. You may make a public comment though when we get to that point. Next item on the agenda is Approver Deny vacation of public hearing related to proposed Plac Canyon Health Services District scheduled for July 25th, 2024. Commissioner Whistle. Point and order. Yeah, is that appropriate? Madam Chair, you are presiding over the meeting. So you can preside and recognize a speaker if you'd like, but the decision is up to you. Okay, Commissioner Whistle. The reason this is on the agenda is we had some discussion last week that was confusing to me. The resubmital of an application for the health services district is abnormal. I don't know any other way to say that. When I look at administrative remedies and I have a little bit of experience with administrative remedies, you get one bite at the apple. Not two, not three, not four, one. And we made a decision on that that I think in my mind was very clear. So we had discussion last week that was open-ended in my mind. That we ask council, her opinion, Commissioner Ellsner supposedly sought legal council from another county attorney gave his opinion and we have divergent views. So we're really trying to figure out what are the legal ramifications and opportunities and process. When I read the statute it's really clear. You go through the process, you get your hearing, you get a decision, if you don't like the decision, you go under judicial review. That I believe is the next step in the process, not a reapplication of a submission that we already ruled on. So that's why I'm curious in this and want to discuss this issue myself. Thank you Madam Chair. If you look at statute, there is nothing at statute that says they can't resubmit. I look through it, I ask someone else to look through it. I can't find anything in statute that says they can't. The thing is, when we denied it, I thought we denied it for fervilous reasons. There wasn't a good logical reason to deny it. At that point, if you look at the health plan, the new one that was submitted, it answered just about every question, if not every question, you too had and points you tried to make when you denied it. So they took that denial and what you said and said we are going to resubmit a new plan which is going to have changes in it and it does for us to consider to move forward so the people of North East Park County in the Bailey area, the Plac Canyon area, can actually vote on it, which is where it needs to be. The plan now has as much detail as it needs, it has as much detail as it needed the first time if you looked at statute. They've added a lot more detail this time so you've got more detail this time than they had the first time. So they are resubmitting a new plan to do this that has got new requirements, new information so they can then proceed to a vote. Yes, statute says it's judicial review. I believe it's a 106. Is that not correct? Councillor. 32, 1-206. 06. It's a review where the judge says, well, did they have any reason? Well, any reason. It's like when we approve something else. If there's one thing out of these seven criteria Any reason? It's like when we approve something else. If there's one thing out of these seven criteria or if someone says something, how unreasonable it may have been, well if that's a reason, then it doesn't get a full judicial review. These judicial reviews are two sides arguing the merits of the case. They're a judge taking a look at the record and saying, yep, basically they kind of followed the procedure. Well, they followed the procedure. Procedure says they can resubmit with additional information. I think we owe the people of the Bailey area, the Platcanian area. I think we owe them at least a hearing on the new plan. I personally think we after the first hearing we owe them the right to vote. I mean I've heard comments from my other commissioners. One of them was at the Bailey Forum, candidate forum where grassroots for rulemaking, you guys are the government. Well, this is trying to let these guys be the government and vote on something that is becoming critical. The whole idea of, you said, well, you've got things available. Well, there are no Medicaid providers that you can use in the mountain area. You have to go to Denver. So what are you doing? You're taking people, they're unmedicate, well, who are those? Those are a lot of the people that are making minimum wage or low income because they can't afford health insurance because if they had to pay for health insurance, they wouldn't be able to afford to eat or have a home. So you're taking people that can't afford the insurance and saying you're going to have to drive all the way to Denver, which is going to at least double the costs of going to a doctor. They don't get reimbursed for the travel to go all the way to Denver. Medical costs are covered, but it's expensive to get to Denver. This is an opportunity for the people in the Platkanian area to vote on whether they want to do this. Can't get any more grassroots than that. That is how it goes is to let the people in the area decide if that is what they want. And if that is what they want, then the health district can go ahead. I have a feeling it is. I was told when we created the health district in Fairplay back in 2017, I was told it was a crazy idea. I wasn't going to be approved. The other two commissioners at that time were both against it, but they both said really it shouldn't be our decision, it should be the people of Fair Play, it should be their decision. So the people of Fair Play got to vote on it, which is what we're asking to have happen. Okay, they voted on it and it was approved overwhelmingly. Thank you. Commissioner. We're going to deliberate first. You presented last meeting. Right. So please. There's about this deliberation. Not about that. Not about this. It's about the process of what's happening right now. It has pertinent to this conversation. We're not. Please sit down and I'll let you know. I want to make a comment first. And I think that this will put this to rest. Under 32-1-206, I did not have this in front of me at the last meeting because Title 32 is not linear in its, it's really pretty scattered as a statute. And it reads, if the petitioners for the organization of a proposed special district fail to secure such resolution of approval in the first instance or on remand from any board of county commissioners, which we did not remand or were required as a fits and municipality. I'll just skip that. The petitioners may request the court to review such action. That's the statement of how proceeding, how it moves forward if there is a denial. There is no, you get a do-over. I mean, we did the resolution on June 4th. So not even a month ago is when this denial was. And that's the statute and that's what we are going by. We did not remand for another application. And so that's my statement. Commissioner Ellisoner. I was just going to say it said that okay that that application, this is a different application. And that's where we are now. This application is substantially different from the one. It addressed a lot of the issues. It changes the way they're going to do the tax. It does a lot of things. So this is not that application. This is a new application that we then need to process as a new application, which means they submitted it within no later than or no sooner than 10 days after it was submitted. And the next board meeting after that, we have to set a hearing date that hearing date has to be within 30 days. That's what we have done. And to take this off the agenda, I think we'll put us in violation of state law. And again, why are you so afraid of allowing the people in the Northeast corner, which neither one of you live in, decide whether they want to have a health district established so we can do a better job of serving our community. There is a commissioner whistle, go ahead. You've worn out the fact that we don't live there, okay? That's just like, who doesn't know that? Doesn't mean we don't think about or represent everyone in this county. I have been an elected official in this county almost 40 years. And with that time, I put all of my heart and soul into the benefit of these people, of this place. And the ability to tax and perpetuity has a lot of the people in Black Indian that have told me, no. That's why I voted the way I did. It's not some esoteric philosophical issue. It's what the people have communicated to me individually. At Bailey Day, I did some more polling. I said, what do you think about the redo of the health services district? What's your opinion of it? Most of them were indifferent. One couple said, well, okay, maybe, but I don't know enough about it. So really what we're talking about is the procedure. And so I would like to hear from our counsel. The law is clear in the language. In and under administrative room in the arena, just like your property tax. You don't get to go first and then say, oh, wait a minute. I didn't add that at stuff. I get to come back and do a do-over. If you have a landing application, you're denied. You don't get to come back for a year. If you have a ballot question, it can't be the exact same ballot question two years in a row. So when all of this comes in and I haven't found the adjective yet for the proponents that they are so committed to this and they won't take no for an answer. They will do anything, try anything every angle. Commissioner Ellsson was talking about he talked to a county attorney. He didn't happen to name him, didn't happen to give his name. So as far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in writing it doesn't exist. So we're in a situation here where we have the proponents demanding we act outside the law in my opinion, the law is silent. It's neither prohibitive or allowing. So with that, I think we're really talking about what's the procedural process for this and is there the ability for a second filing? I just want to add one quick thing obviously you haven't heard it We have a question. Man, please. It's about the agenda. It's not about this. It's about how you are going about debating this. We have legal come to your unit. You've grabbed us for the last 15 minutes. We should have a public opinion first. We before you make a decision on this, you are tripling our rights. We are not. This is this is not a new application. This is an ongoing initial application. We have no account that we were not as a victim. Okay. Excuse me. Any notice to this? Okay. No notice. We have legal notice to this. Okay. No notice. We have legal counsel here. She must be heard. You have to be there. That does. Please sit down. I'll let you know what I'm doing. That is one of the rudest things I've heard. I will let you know when you can speak. We are having our conversation first. Let us. I was just going to say we will offer opportunity for you to be heard, ma'am, but we're trying to figure this out on our own first, okay? We will counsel. Great, so do we. Let them speak. I'm going to look to. There is no fear on hearing this again. The commissioner, the anytime something like this comes up, it causes angst across the board throughout the whole county for the public after less than a month of a decision, written resolution, that this comes back in front of and turns everybody's life upside down again to have to try to take a day off and do all this stuff to try to work on this. It is, there should be at least, and maybe we talked about procedures in the past about how a district, this is forming a new government within the county. I mean, a new government entity. And there needs to be more structure. And I think it was talked about during our deliberation that we need to have more direction at the county level on how these processes all work and make sure that we take plenty of time to be able to think these things through because it has infinite implications. I mean, imperpetuity. And I've done some research on these just reading about special districts. And it's a quagmire. So. Madam Chair, the new application has a sunset which you requested on the sales tax. That's not in perpetuity. The they create a board that is can go after them at any time. The board can say, we don't need this anymore because this is so successful and they really don't need this, we can stop it. There is nothing in perpetuity in this. Everything in it can be stopped. This sales tax has a sunset in it that could be reauthorized when they want to, but it's a vote of the people. You're denying the people the right to choose if they want to be able to provide health care services in the Northeast corner of Park County, where 63 to 65% of the people live. Okay, and I did not read the new documents because we have not had the hearing yet. And I did not prepare, I'm not prepared for a hearing. I'm prepared if it's pertinent under statute for this to come forward to another hearing less than a month from the last ruling. That's what this conversation is about. Commissioner Whistle. I don't know if you want to do this or not, but we need some advice on the process and what the law says in your legal opinion. My opinion, as I stated at the last meeting, stands. The question was asked whether or not the statute prohibits the applicants from refiling. I said it did not. I compared it to other statutes which I referenced. In fact, I think I was specific about the annexation statute which says that an annexation that's turned down has to wait a year to go back. And I think I also agreed with Commissioner Whistle when Commissioner Whistle stated that as a matter of constitutional law, the public gets to petition its government. So I would just stand on those comments made at the last meeting. Commissioner Whistle. With that, the law is silent. It doesn't enable, it doesn't prohibit. So we're going out on the limb to go one of those two directions. I have no worries about another hearing. directions. I have no worries about another hearing. I have no compunction about whatever a redraft is because it's going to be taken on the merits. The merits of what is presented to us and what we hear in the testimony. But it I'm trying to find the right word. I can't find the right word, so I'm not going to say anything, but it seems over the top. I'll just use that word, over the top, that this group, how many people do they represent? We don't know. We don't know who the five people are for their board of directors. They haven't displayed any outward outreach to the community. We have no community members that I've seen other than their groups and gaggles of groups that have supported this in a public hearing. So where's the support besides this group and Commissioner Elzer? So where's the support besides this group in Commissioner Elzer? Commissioner Elzer? Yeah, you asked where the support, there was a petition prepared and it's a very informal. It's not something this legally binding that was at Bailey Days. And that was just, you know, Bailey Days is a mixture of a lot of people living in Bailey and everywhere else. And they had I think over 130 signatures of support. There are a lot of people that are behind this. We don't have a board of directors yet because we don't have a special district to have that board of directors. There is an election that's going to be happening for the Board of Directors that will happen in November. There will be a Board that's created, but that's part of what goes to the legal side of the world. It will be there. I'm not unsure. I understand all of that. But you know, you say, well, the law is silent. Therefore, we want to stop it. Our country is not built on the law is. Therefore, we want to stop it. Our country is not built on the law is silent. So we want to stop it. Basically, our country is built on the premises. If there isn't a law saying you can't do it, you can do it. So you're perverting totally the argument that, well, there's no law. It's silent. So therefore, we shouldn't do it. No. If there is no law, it's silent, so therefore we shouldn't do it. No, if there is no law and it's silent, that means you should do it. Okay, and we're having this conversation because when I read statute, I see that it is clear about the process of denial. It is not clear about re-applicating a do-over application. So it's like, oh, we got this one wrong, so we need to, we, we're going to just fix this one. That's how I see it. So to me, the statute is clear on that part of it, which is I see this as a continuation of the original hearing of the original application that was put forth. It's the same group of people. It's the same topic. It's the same subject. And so that's why I wanted to have this conversation because in reading statute, I mean, it's words on a paper and they're real. So. Yeah, and I have said I never trust you when you read statute because there have been several instances where you reading statute isn't accurate. And I think this is one of those cases. It does not talk about resumption. This is a new application. And that's what you have to get in your mind. There are a lot of changes that they made in this application. We have had the application and it's a hearing, yes, and oh, you should take in the thing into account before the hearing. No, that is not true in these cases. This is their application. You can read and understand the application before the hearing because you know that is part of the hearing. Okay. Commissioner Whistle. And I'm sure I agree with you. The statute to me is very clear. It's discretionary. And I see absolutely no reason to go forward with this. It's just people will not take no for an answer. And they're going to do anything and everything they can to get around that. Specifically Commissioner Ellsner, you were so committed to this project that I don't believe you have any objectivity whatsoever. And you are so against this project, I don't believe you have any objectivity whatsoever. I became committed to this after they submitted their application and I went through that first hearing. I cannot undo everything that came in on that first hearing. I want to allow them to present their second hearing and have this not their second their first hearing on the new one. So we can then decide its merits. the second hearing, sir. It's the first hearing on the new application. I'm not going to argue with you, Commissioner. We need to come to a conclusion. I think we should allow Madam Chair, let them have an opportunity to speak to us, to allow them to have their say, and from there we'll take it under advisement and go from that point. But I think it's pretty clear to me, I understand what our council is saying, because well we're going to enable all the opportunities that we can provide them. When clearly, after the first round, if they're not successful, they have to go, can ask for judicial review to see if we've done anything wrong. If we've done anything wrong, they will remand it back to us and we will have the opportunity to do that again. Okay, thank you. And I just want everybody to know, this is our only opportunity to have these conversations. And so we wanted to have these conversations before anyone else stepped in on the conversation because we can't sit down with a cup of coffee and talk about these issues unless we're up here in the public. And so if you felt that I was silencing you, that's not true. We just wanted to have some conversation first because this is our only opportunity. So Marianne, I will allow you to come to the podium, make sure the green lights on, sign in and we are happy to hear from you. My first comment I hope does not include the whatever timeline that you're going to put on me because it was what I wanted to say for how this process has occurred for the last half hour. It was backwards and I continue to say it's backwards because you were having this conversation without our legal representation. You asked your legal who gave you an answer that you then debated about and still are trying to deny us that. We got no notice as petitioners since this was going to happen today. It only was brought to our attention when it appeared on an agenda Sunday morning, 72 hours before this. Our legal counsel is here today and was not allowed. She was glad just like I was. Was not allowed to enter the conversation with your legal during this portion. I get the part where you guys need to have your talk together and you're going into an executive session with your legal. But you were trying to make it sounded like and you have already made up your mind before you allowed public comment and that is against all good governance. Now I'd like to start my regular comments if I may please. We did submit a new plan. In the statute, it says they may go to the judicial. It doesn't say we have to. And as your council has said, there is nothing that says we can't submit a new plan. There were three options. Do nothing go to the judicial may, not must. Or a third option is go ahead and make a new plan. And the reason I know that they would have said it there, if they would have said you cannot submit a new plan, because in 32-1-106, which I'm going to reference you in which our legal will as well, if after an election, the organization or disillusion of the special district beyond the Abu Dhabi, it fails, it defeats, it's defeated in an election, then no new petition for inclusion or exclusion as the case may be shall be submitted again for an expiration of eight months. It's very clear in the statute what happens if it fails on the ballot. That we can't go back for eight months. That is not in the part if the commissioners say no. And they would have put it there. We know how law is written. They would have put it there if they were going to say, oh, and by the way, you cannot submit a new plan. Our new plan has 30% more information than the last one, two extra exhibits. We submitted it last week. It's in the minutes you approved those minutes today. And the minutes reflect that you gave us this hearing last week. So that has already occurred. Lastly, this is voter suppression in its purist form. Don't laugh. You are suppressing the rights of... I am not kidding you. You are not letting the people vote for this issue. You have put every barrier in front of us that you can possibly think of, including this rather suspicious and illegal rights to us today. You have stoned on us. We have a right to submit a new plan. You already approved the hearing. You approved the minutes that approved the hearing. And now you're doing this and that is voter suppression, but not allowing the people the right to vote on this. Just today, you said Commissioner Mitchell on item three resolution number 30, we heard there was public demand for this and we're happy that this is happening for the other thing. We've had a lot of public demand, there's a lot of people online today and people here who are going to talk about this. And you are not letting us do this. You have done everything in your power to stop this action. And I have no idea why a second plan was submitted. It is legal to submit. There is nothing that stops us from being able to do that in the statute. You are trying to pull anything out of a hack to stop us. And last question, when you say the pleasure of allegiance, do you really mean liberty and justice for all? Or do you mean only for the people who follow your agenda? We're not going to have a conversation, so thank you for your comment. All right, Steve Vence will come up and make a comment. Hello, I'm Steve Vince and I am from Bailey and almost all the people that I speak to and associate with on the Bailey side. We are the people that I've talked to and that I've communicated with on this issue. We are totally for a health facility being established in Bailey to take care of the community's needs. is a 1% sales tax that goes against our limited budgets that we have and just it's a tax and spend type thing. That is not the way to get this done. You've got to find some other funding and other means of financing this operation. The people are not going to vote for an agenda here. The people have denied ballot issues that reflect adding to the budget of the sheriff's department, time in and time out. And that is extremely important to park county and all the communities within park county. A 1% sales tax and spend type thing is not the way to get this done. There is got to be other ways that you need to research and find other ways to find the answers thing instead of dipping into the pockets of people that are on a very limited budget that live in Park County. Madam Chair, yes, Erin. With all due respect to the speaker, the issue is not a hearing on the application. If you are going to open up testimony to whether or not you're going to approve this service plan, then you need to give full notice to all folks who want to testimony to whether or not you're going to approve this service plan. Then you need to give full notice to all folks who want to give their testimony on the service plan. The issue in front of the board is whether or not you are going to revoke the decision to hold a hearing. And so I would just caution the board that it's slippery slope and if you're going to start taking testimony about the service plan and the merits of the service plan and the merits of the district, then we need to give proper notice and we need to have that hearing. Right. So any comments, thank you. Thank you, Erin, our county attorney. Comments need to be made only on, yes, the hearing or vacate the hearing. Okay, I'd like to make just one final comment on that then. I commend Commissioner Mitchell and whistle for sticking to your guns that this issue has been decided already and it should be a closed issue for 2024 and The opposition that doesn't believe that Really should try to calm down and move on and find another way to proceed. Thank you Thank you. We also have people online, anyone else in the room want to comment on just this agenda item. Please come up to the podium and that is if we should if you're not. I'm not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you're not sure if you And with a no vote today, you have taken my right away to hear a proposal, a new proposal that addressed the issues that you brought up as a commission in the last month and May. You're taking away a vote of my right to vote on whether or not I want a health district in my community. Today you are the big government that you say that you fight. Why won't you allow us the public hearing that was already put on the agenda for July 25th for a health care district in the Plac Canyon area? And why won't you let us choose in November you let us choose in November to vote on this. As you stall and you put roadblocks in the way, you will not be on the vote, in the, on the, on the November ballot. And you have stopped my right to choose. You're elected to represent all of the citizens of Park County, including me. represent all of the citizens of Park County, including me, and we're not asking you to form a healthcare, we're not asking district, we're not asking for anything other than the opportunity to have the new plan presented in a public hearing that's on your agenda, and the opportunity to exercise our vote in November. Our right to vote in November. That is all we're asking for. And I just one little thing, Commissioner Mitchell, you started this meeting with a prayer, praying that the Lord would bless the people that are in need. And now you want to vote to stop that. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. We also have some people online, Tim, come on up and sign in and then we'll get to people with their hands up online. The people with your hands up online, make sure you're talking about this item. And this agenda item and not the permit side of the world or the things we have gone through. After this is over, we will have public comment where you will be able to talk about anything you want. The Constitution begins with the people. Let the people decide. Thank you for your comment. I will go first to Fred Borton. I'll ask you to unmute and please speak to this agenda item. All right. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. First, I want to thank commissioners Mitchell and Whistle for standing against this obvious attempt to stir up trouble before the November election. The timing of this is preposterous. It could not be more obvious to those of us paying attention as to what the real motives of this is about. Thank you. All right. And may I have your name? I don't think you're Fred. No, I'm Brenda. Brenda Borton. Okay. Very good. That's just for our record. Thank you very much. Sure. Thank you. All right. Next person up is Carrie Arnold. I will ask you to unmute. Okay. You are unmuted. Oh, Kerry Arnold-Marsh. We can't hear you. There might be something with your computer settings with regard to your microphone. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you now. I had done plug my headphones. A couple of comments. Number one, I agree with Sherry Bizant. I do not understand people who are so interested in the power of not letting the citizens vote. Secondly, I'm sure most of you saw, or a lot of you saw, my article in the flume, where I question, I always question somebody who tells me they researched something like Amy did when she gets a bid for a property, for a part part on this side of Kenosha Pass, which yet two of the three commissioners, we're not speaking to that. We're speaking about this agenda item goes, you can't tell me your researching at Amy when you can't read minimum bid 150,000 and you bid eight and quarter Actually part county does extend past Kenosha past which seems to be all you guys are interested in why not let the people decide They're not asking let the people decide. They're not asking for anything. You know, your figures, when you were saying, well, it's only 12 miles to Conifer. Well, maybe if you live at the top of Crow Hill, it's 12 miles. We're speaking, we're speaking on to to vacate or allow the hearing. We're not talking about the district. I'll just hear it in the following. Allow the hearing. OK. People who are asking for it approve it. You've already scheduled it. So approve it and do it. OK. Thank you for your comment. Jack Roberts, I will ask you to unmute. Morning. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this very important topic. Black Canyon needs a health service district. Don't mimic big government, do the right thing here. Go ahead and allow this to be presented once again. So then that the citizens can determine if they do or do not want to health service district. So please prove placing this, please approve hearing this proposal once again. Thank you for your consideration. All right, thank you for your comment. If we have anyone else in the room, come on up, you can come up. We'll get back to the Zoom hands in a minute. We've got someone else in the room that would like to make a comment. Hi, please a commissioner. My name is Betty Matthias. And will you please speak into the microphone so the people on Zoom can hear you and yeah. And then you'll need to sign in when you're done, okay? Okay, great. I'm Betty Wittias. I am a retired attorney on inactive status, so I'm appearing at this point as a legal advocate for the petitioners. And I need some clarity about the authority. This is my first issue. The legal authority to rescind the 30 vote for the hearing on a second proposal, whether it be called a revision or a brand new one will get to that, but are you'll get to that. I'm not sure what the authority is, Ms. Smith, for rescinding an unanimous vote at a previous meeting and then accept the minutes where the minutes say that there was a 30 vote. And so that seems to be a conflict there if you're approving it, the three nothing, and now you're not approving it. So because my understanding notice is going out for a public hearing on July 25th. I want to also, again, with all due respect, I'm reading, you know, the action on service plan at 32123-1 with reference to the review that you guys do at Benny's service plan, the Board of County Commissioners has a following authority. And it says you may approve without condition or modification the service plan submitted. We've already put that one in cemetery, I gather. B says to disapprove the service plan. Oh, no, sorry, to approve without condition or modification. I'm sorry, that's the one that's either resurrected or reformatted whatever is a modification. To disapprove the service plan submitted, as written, I had as written. So minor standing is the first proposal that was discussed at the May 14th B.O.C.C. meeting. You all, by two to one vote, denied that proposal. And then you submitted written resolutions for your reasoning. So, and the third one is to conditionally through the service plan subject to the submission of additional information relating to the modification of the proposed service plan. So, however you want to look at that criteria, the petitioners argueably when they first got your resolutions assumed that you are also asking for the original proposal. This is one view. This is one view. That the original proposal was being cured. And so in some ways, whether to call the new proposal, a new proposal or modification, in some ways, it doesn't matter because it's my opinion that a hearing still needs to be held, and it will be posted in the flume for July 25th, which I know also is in a regular VOCC meeting. And then of course going on at 32-1-203, it gives the reasons that you can use to let petition or know why their plan is insufficient. If you've similarly dismissed the first proposal, I'm not exactly sure why. Well, you listed all those things because we can look to them when we file for to just review. We can say, well, that resolution or whereas whatever is illegal, your honor, the district Court judge. Not that you're not honorable, but anyway. You listed the reasons why and based on that information, the Tishiners rightly thought that their alternative was to cure your original proposal. However, that's also not the way that proposal is perceived. You said a hearing by three nothing vote and I just don't understand how you can rescind an unanimous vote, especially since these are either and again the statute of silent about whether you can resubmit a plan, but it's very clear that you can submit revisions. So thank you for your comment. All right, we will get back to Zoom. Olivia, I will ask you to unmute. Hello. We can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. My name is Olivia Loria. I've lived in Park County for over 40 years. The Bailey side of Park County needs health facility. And we're speaking. It's horrendous. Just I'm getting there. I think it's horrendous that you're making the people who have Medicaid have to go to Denver for healthcare. So I would urge you to please allow the hearing and allow the vote. Thank you. All right. Thank you for your comment. We will get to Ann Linnahan. I'll ask you to unmute or Annie. I'm sorry. Okay. Yep. That's Annie. That's okay. My name is Annie Lennahann. I'm a resident of Bailey for over 29 years now. I've worked at Park County Human Services as the manager of the assistance programs, including Medicaid for over 17 years. Prior to joining Placanian Fire Department in 2020 as the administrator, I fully understand the need for a health care district in our community. Black Canyon Fire receives numerous walking calls for non-emergent calls among many others. I'm asking in the interest of the people of Bailey of our community that we are allowed to vote on this topic. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comment. We've got one more person online and then we will get to if anyone else in the room. Gary Fisk, I will ask you to unmute. Hi, this is Gary. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Yes. Yes, I would like, I support Dave and Amy what you're doing on this. I think this request for rehearing should be vacated. My reason is that it takes a lot of time for people to take time off work to be online or to be in person to have hearings. And by the logic I've heard today, there's really no limit to the number of hearings that can be proposed. So we're looking at version 2.0 now. And if that were approved that are hearing, then they could come back for a third hearing, a fourth hearing. That's really harassing the voters to expect us to make that much time. It's in a way similar to the harassment that we've had. I think the voters have turned down for Hart County. Excuse me, that has nothing that has nothing to do with whether we have the hearing or not. Yeah, we've turned down for taxes and I think we're getting harassed here. If we, in the other question I don't think has been answered is, if we just have this absolute right to vote on this, as I keep hearing over and over, then why does the law require that this go through the Board of County Commissioners? We vote to the County Commissioners in to do a lot of the research for us that we can't do. And to just vote based on a petition without going through the County Commissioners means there's the laws incorrect then when it forces this to go to the BOCC first. So I would ask you to continue on to vacate this hearing on July 25. All right. I'm done. Thank you for your comment. All right. And we will go to, we've got another person or two in the room. My name is Charlotte Wittias. I am asking please to let the people of Bailey vote. There's concern about a 1% sales tax. That is part of the vote, and that is something that people can say, well, we wanted, but let's find a different way to do it, which then the board of the health services district would undertake. I want to speak also because as a nurse I want to speak also because as a nurse practitioner in my previous life, very concerned about the health of people, I am also your former veteran service officer for the county and so I have worked with a lot of veterans. I have been in touch with our current VSO and he is in support of this and we'll also be able to speak to the needs our veterans have. So the important thing is the statute is simply allowing the people of our part of the county to say yes we want this or no it's fairly simple so please let us vote. Thank you for your comment and it looks like we have one more person online. Linda James I'll ask you to unmute. This is Linda. I there's no sound. So I'm not sure if I've been called on, but I was unmuted. So I'm assuming I was. Can you hear me? Whoops, and we just lost our connection. Zoom froze. All right. Michael, you do know how to get the meeting back. Go to directory here. Please enter the meeting passcode followed by the pound sign. Sorry the Gremlin showed up. the the the the the the the the I think we should be back up. Can you hear us, Linda? Yes. All right. We Zoom frozen. We had to re-dial in with the room here. So please continue. I basically was raising my hand. And in hopes of letting you know that there was no sound on the sand. Okay. How to throw my two cents in here. I really don't understand why you've decided not to hold the hearing. I mean, you stated your reasons. I really, I really hope that you change your mind and give people an opportunity to vote on this. I personally think it probably will go down because most people do not want to change their doctors if they have a good doctor. We're speaking about vacating, about holding the hearing or vacating the hearing. So, why? Sorry, Linda. Yes, I wish you wouldn't jump in in a middle of a sentence because now I've lost my total train of thought on the point that I was going to make right there. But anyway, I do hope you change your mind and decide to allow the people an opportunity to vote on this. I'm pretty calm, they don't go down, but allow us the opportunity to vote. I might be wrong, but we deserve the opportunity to vote. All right. Thank you very much for your comment. All right. Thank you very much for your comment. All right. It looks like we are finished with our comments. I think I'd like to address a just a couple of the things that were said. One of them was that this was to stir this up just before the election. I'm pretty sure our county attorney can attest to the fact that this was to stir this up just before the election. I'm pretty sure our county attorney can attest to the fact that this was started much longer than this election, a cycle ago. I think there actually was an attempt last year to put it on the ballot, because that's what you have to do, but it ended up being a little more complex at the time and they couldn't get the work done. So you're always going to have these issues just before an election because it is an election. So that to me is just, you know, that's a frivolous argument. The other one is there must be another way. Well, that is a problem. I'm involved in a lot of agencies and work and health and human services and work with a lot of people. And it's like you talk to representatives, you talk to the department, well, can we have a grant? Well, do you have a health service district? No, no, you cannot have a grant. We can't really raise money until something is created that can do that work, which is why we need this district. I mean, it's just, you've got to have it, you've got to start somewhere, not letting the people vote. I mean, that goes against every grain in my thinking as far as what this country is about. The people are petitioning the government to say, hey, we'd like to be able to vote on this. And the government in this point is saying, no, we aren't going to pay any attention because we think we might find an out somewhere buried in the law, which I think you heard there probably is not that out, and you're just denying the people a right to vote. The people on our side of the county should be the ones making that decision. Not this B-O-C-C. The only position the B-O-C-C has is when someone comes up and says we want to create a special district, we should look at it and say, you know, everything that is required by law, and it's pretty clear when you get into the special district ruling in Dola and how they set it up, everything that is required by law to set one up is there in part of the package. So we will send that to the court. They don't send it to the clerk to put on the ballot we will send that to the court. They don't send it to the clerk to put on the ballot. They send it to the court, the court. And along with that, they have to provide signatures, I believe it's 200 signatures on a petition saying, we want to do this. So we don't have the final answer. It goes to the court and they have to have petitions. If they have the signatures on the petitions and we say put it it's good then it gets placed on the ballot. There are other things that play into that other than just us. Now does all that make sense? I don't know, I didn't write the law, but the law has been around very long. I know there was a comment made at the last hearing about, well, you know, we're just getting a lot of these. Okay. 2017 was the last time a special district was created that was a health district here. Before that, I believe it was 1995 when the wreck district was created. I can't remember it was 95 or 97. Before that, I mean, you're going back. This is something that we should hear and have the hearing that was scheduled. It's already been published in the flume. It needs to be there. We need to have the hearing. We need them to decide and let I think let the people vote on this. I think anything else is doing a terrible disservice to the people of Park County. Thank you, Commissioner Whistle. This has been a very interesting discussion to say the least. The reason new districts have to go through the Board of County commissioners and get their blessing is because it's required. If they don't get their blessing, it doesn't happen. There's a check and balance in this. That's what we are trying to perform in this role is this in the best interest of the people to be affected. And based upon the original application that we thoroughly vetted and went through and made written comments, because we were told we were gonna be sued. Flat by the representative, we're gonna sue you. So we prepared to be sued. No. Right? We did. We wrote down our comments. I purposely split a lot of time into determining that verbiage because we're going to get sued. That's what people do in today's world. They sue everybody. I want to be sued. I want anybody to have to sue us. Yet when I look at my responsibility on this particular subject, to me, we heard, I heard it again today, you may not, but I heard it again today, the over-resounding people that are not supporting of that 1% sales tax. And the reason why. Right? Again, you have your fun. I'm having mine, okay? But to me, it just shows the arrogance of this group. The absolute hypocrisy of this group to never ever allow the word no to enter into your vocabulary. If this had merit, I think it would have got two votes. I don't think it does. A new proposal, an old proposal, one wherever it comes from. The time is not right. I think voters have election question fatigue. They've been asked seven consecutive years to add new taxes to their pocketbook Most of them have failed some of them have passed But for the large majority people are Struggling to survive in this world that we live in With our 20 and 30% increases due to inflation, caused by no one here, but their government. This is why we have this responsibility, and that's why I'm ready to make a decision. You know, it gets to a point where sometimes I really don't know where to start. One, it was 20 people voted or showed up in the first hearing in favor of this seven were against. And I think if you count the numbers here and say what is overwhelming, I think the overwhelming number was that supported. So to your whole comment there is just totally out of line, Mr. Russell. And disingenuous and very disrespectful for the people that are trying to do something to help out their community. You say struggling to survive. Yeah, people, especially the low-income people, the people that don't have health insurance, the people that are on Medicaid that cannot go to a doctor anywhere within a reasonable trip. Those are the people that are really struggling. If you want to take a look at it, drive down to Denver from Harris Park and back. You've got a couple of hours and a hundred miles. How much does it cost in gas to drive that hundred miles? And I'll guarantee you the people that are on Medicaid aren't the ones that own the newer cars that get great gas mileage. They're the ones that own the older cars that get poor gas mileage. So they're going to spend more driving to Denver and back on gas, then they will probably spend in two years in a sales tax, because the sales tax is only on discretionary income. Again, you know, it's, what I see is that the BOCC at this point has no legal standing to not follow through with the hearing. At the hearing you can say I don't want to do it, that's fine. But I don't see where we have a legal standing to deny something that we already approved, that does not cost anybody anything. And the comment that it's terribly inconvenient to have to come to Bailey or to fair play from Bailey or zoom in when we're talking about a subject that affects people's lives more than anything else. If you don't have your health, everything else doesn't matter. This is a way we can try to help our veterans who don't have the ability to get down to Denver all the time or have to go down for a blood draw but can't. It affects all the people that are on Medicaid and I would bet Mr. Whistle that you've had experience with Medicaid. I know a lot of people that have had experience with Medicaid and who are these people? These are people that said, you know, I will be a foster parent to help some kids in need because foster kids are on Medicaid. That is the way they get their their health care and their health insurance. So can I volunteer to be a foster parent? Not if I have to drive all the way down to Denver. There are a lot of people that need this service. This service will provide it. I think the people need a hearing. I think it's extremely disingenuous for both of you to sit there and say, you know, we love it. We're grassroots. We're going to do the grassroots. Everybody's grassroots. Everybody gets to participate. We listen to the people and then you won't even have a hearing especially when the last hearing was 20 to 7 in favor of. And that's all I have to say because I'm kind of out of words sometimes. Not very often though. Not very often though. All right, and all I'll say is the statute reads, fail to, petitioners, the organization fail to secure such resolution of approval in the first instance or on remand from any board of county commissioners may petition the court. And we were told that you were going to go to court. See you in court is what we heard at the last meeting. So I just wanted to make that last comment. To me, that's crystal clear. So Commissioner Whistle. It's not necessarily I'm going to sue you. Seeing you in court says, you know, the judge is going to look at this and then we'll let that decide. That is what they meant. They did not mean we're going to sue you. The way this works, it's remanded to the court. So the court then can look at it and they then can present their side in court because that is what's in statute. Right, and that's what we expected to happen for it to go to court. Go to district court for them to review our decision because we did not remand it back for a revised application. So our revised plan. So Commissioner Whistle. Yeah, I just want to make a couple of things too on the record that when we denied this to one commissioner Allison or personally threatened us. He wished ill will to both of us. He wished catastrophic events would happen to us. No, I did not. I just did. You can go back and I don't think that was the case. I think it interrupt you, sir. Well, when you sit and accuse me of things like that, I will interrupt you, sir. Please, please. Madam, you need to get the chair. If your whistle has the chair. If your whistle has the floor. You need to get the left hand of your side here under control, because making false accusations like that, it's on the record. No, I did not. It's on the record. It's on the record. That is Strophic events and all of that. Please. Commissioner whistle has the floor. Because that's the way you operate, sir. That's the way you go after this. You don't have any rationale of things you believe in. You are committed 110% and you will do anything. You will say anything. You will coerce anyone. You will intimidate. You will use any device you have to get your way. That is not gonna work with me. Okay. You have done the same thing as a commissioner and as an assessor, and that does not work with me, sir. But. All right, Commissioner Whistle. I make a motion that we vacate the hearing and dispose of it and that the proponents have the opportunity for judicial review. Second. As a matter of clarification, Commissioner Whistle, would your motion then be to vacate the hearing and reaffirm the denial, nunk proton to today's date. Yes, ma'am. So the denial of the original application is reaffirmed NUNK Pro TUNK to today. And the reason that's important is because they have a time limit for bringing their lawsuit. So if you are reaffirming your denial and making it NUNK Pro TUNK to today, then they get to count 28 days to bring their lawsuit. Which is what I understand you in the committee. Just be clear that my position has not changed. When we made our decision in May, I did not remand. I did not expect to remand. I did not anticipate. Are you remand from me? And I did not authorize a remand from me. And I understand that. So as a result of the motion to vacate the timeframe for them to bring their 106 claim is, I believe, today. So, my suggestion, if your earlier comments are to be taken into account, the motion would be to vacate the hearing, reaffirm the denial of the First Service Plan, NUNC Pro TUNC, to today. Your Latin is confusing me. So to build back in the time frame for them to bring their 106 against the earlier denial, because I think they were led to believe that they were going to have a hearing. I don't know who led them to believe that certainly wasn't from. It was on the agenda and approved. Last week. Before we got to last week, right? And we got all the stuff in here. And then we had the question of do they have the right or do they not have the right? And that's why we had this discussion, right? So look at the law. Different issue. Do they have a hearing on a different certain correct the submitted service plan. So show that so bracket that and is your motion then to give them build in time so that they could bring their 106 to the denial of the first submittal of the service plan. I would say yes. Okay. Thank you. That's I think, saying that's right, say or under the circumstances. So for clarification, they have 28 days to take it to district court from today. From today, yes. And that is the motion. Okay. All in favor that is the motion. Okay. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Come on, ask opposed. It's the courteous thing to do. All right. Adam Chair, point of order. You should ask for those opposed. You need to ask both sides of the question. Those opposed. Hi. Normally you're just happy to tell me you're opposed. All right. Well, this one's a little more important. Asta, and Erin, on this, in fact, do we wear at public comment. If anyone would like to make a public comment outside of the discussion we just had. Please come up to the podium or raise your hand online. David, I will ask you to unmute. I'll ask you to unmute. Let me try again. I'm going to ask you to unmute. There you go. Hi, my name is David Wellhuser. I'm going to make a public comment about your commissioner's decision. I totally, completely accepted this point, but the decision around the denial is mostly based off of rumor and assumption. The plan is completely unanimously approved our event. And as far as- Madam Chair, I'm point of order, Madam Chair. The board is going to be entertaining a resolution. We'll put this matter to bed. Okay. And so I would recommend to the board that Mr. Well-Hauser's comments at this point are inappropriate and I apologize and make that point earlier because until you pass that resolution your decision on this is not final. Okay David, David I'm sorry we are not going to take any comment on the deliberation we had today. today. All right, Linda, your hand is still up. I'll ask you to unmute if you meant to have your hand up. I'm sorry. I did not lower my mistake. Okay. Thank you. Fred Borton, I believe that was Brenda. I will ask you to unmute. And anyone who wants to speak online, please come up and sign in. In the room. Go ahead, Brenda. Yes, my next position is that while this effort to create a new Platkanian Health Services District may not only be about providing taxpayer subsidized, gender affirming care, and abortions. These will most assuredly be the unintended consequences. Colorado legislation has passed the Gender Affirming Healthcare healthcare provider study in Article 59, Section 2559102, which is to report on the patient to provider ratio in Colorado. And I quote, especially in rural areas. This report is to be concluded and published by September 2026, which is, I believe, when they originally thought that their plan for the health services district could break ground. Thank you. All right, thank you for your comment. Hi, Betty would type. Please speak into the microphone, so that people online can hear you. Okay. Betty would type. Please speak into the microphone so the people online can hear you. Okay. Betty, which I ask again. First of all, I just want to thank Ms. Smith for clarifying the new date for the clock to tick for any motion for judicial review or complaint for judicial review. Wow, that was my question. Oh, I know. Were you still going into executive session after all this legal stuff that's come up? Because I wouldn't, I don't understand why you go to inter-executive session at this point to talk about legal things. We're not there yet, but thank you for your comment. We'll discuss that after public comments. Okay. You'll allow questions about that then. No, we're not going to answer any questions. We'll just make a determination if we need to go into to executive session after we've heard public comment. That's our normal procedure. Oh, okay. Thank you. Suzanne, I will ask you to unmute online. Thank you. Good afternoon. Two things I wanted to talk about. One is the issue of insurance that we're finding in Park County that many of us are having trouble getting insurance. Those of us who are having trouble getting insurance but get it are the lucky ones. There are people who absolutely cannot get insurance. I know that in looking at an insurance policy, I would urge you to make sure that your staff looks to see whether or not insurance really covers, because I know insurance policies I've been looking at lately specifically exclude music events without door overnight exposure. They specifically exclude fire performances and again it's kind of amazed that there's even any insurance that comes in for special events given the problems that we have. So that's number one insurance. Number two, I'm going to make the same comment I did last week and ask you again to take a look at your camping ordinance 20-01. I would urge you to make it clear that no camping is allowed on any property, whether it's under or over 35 acres on agriculture, residential, any other type of property, except by the owner and invited non-paying guests. And other than that, and subject to course for the ordinance to the limits that you've said, that clearly the campaign is not allowed except for owner and invited non-paying guests unless the person has gotten a zoning for recreational vehicle park and campground zone district where they've gotten a conditional use permit to allow camping that provides for infrastructure and safety, where they've gotten an outdoor event permit that you have taken a look at. And again, on the outdoor event permit was not designed to turn any property into camping. So I would ask the attorney to advise the commissioners as to whether or not that's a problem, is I see it, and to make sure that we're not having people use their 36-acre plus agricultural form camping events with 145 people staying as long as they want during whatever they want for with no restrictions. And I commend you all. You guys have a tough job trying to sort through issues like the district and whatnot. So thank you all for the time that you all have spent. I know it's a tough job. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. In your comments have been duly noted and we will look into that. Thank you. All right. And David in, I will ask you to unmute, but we cannot accept comment about the issue we discussed for the event until we're done with the resolution, but I'll ask you to unmute. Yeah, I'm just kind of confused that the last caller completely targeted the event in question. And it just seemed like, you know, we got shut down for our project for making comments about it. And then the last caller went directly on 100% toward that issue. I just wanted to make that comment. Okay. Thank you for your comment. It looks like we are done with public hearing. Move to. You mean public comments? Public comments? Move to close public comment. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. And Aaron, in sense, we have thoroughly discussed the issue. Do you still believe we need to go into an executive session? I do not. That was there for a flexibility, if the board wanted to have legal advice. Okay. So. I reduce the massacling, would you move to adjourn? Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Thank you, everybody, online. You have a great afternoon. I'm going to go on to the mirror. She's going to go killed in the zoom or not. Yeah, I'm not sure if they want to get killed in the zoom or not. Yeah, I'm not sure if they want to get killed in the zoom or not. Yeah, I've got to, this is triple the notion. I guess please, I'm not sure if they want to get killed in the zoom or not. I'm not sure if they want to get killed in the zoom or not. I'm not sure if they want to get killed in the zoom or Okay. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that.