Archives for 2025

• Publication of texts leads to Havenar’s exit and Stern’s appointment
• Goldman appointed to hear petition protest
• Effort to stop recalls falls short
• Executive session convened; Collins announces last day
• Correction

By James Howald and Jackie Burhans

The Palmer Lake Board of Trustees (PLBOT) scheduled four meetings in June: a regular board meeting, an administrative hearing to address a protest against the recall of Trustees Shana Ball, Kevin Dreher and Dennis Stern, a special meeting consisting only of an executive session, and a second board meeting. The second board meeting was moved from June 26 to June 30, after this issue of Our Community News went to press. It will be reported in the August issue of OCN.

At the first regular board meeting, the board accepted the resignation of Mayor Glant Havenar and appointed Trustee Dennis Stern to complete Havenar’s term as mayor. The board voted to hire a third party to preside over a hearing regarding the protest of the recalls of Ball, Dreher, and Stern. The board also heard public comments concerning Stern’s appointment, the proposed Buc-ee’s travel center, and Havenar’s behavior.

At the recall protest hearing on June 19, resident Brian Yavanian challenged the validity of the signatures collected to recall Ball, Dreher, and Stern, arguing that Beth Harris had provided a postal address, not a legal address, and therefore the signatures she collected were invalid.

The special meeting on June 23 consisted of an executive session and a question from a resident.

Publication of texts leads to Havenar’s exit and Stern’s appointment

In the wake of the publication of texts between Havenar, her friend and political ally Darcy Schoening, and Buc-ee’s lobbyist Mark Waller, Havenar submitted her resignation as Palmer Lake’s mayor. The texts showed Havenar mocking, insulting, and demeaning her constituents and the spouse of one of the trustees, often in obscene language, texting with Waller, and texting while she was participating in an executive session, which are closed to the public by law.

At the June 12 meeting, the board voted unanimously to accept Havenar’s letter of resignation. Then Town Attorney Scot Krob explained the legalities of filling the mayoral vacancy. Krob said the vacancy could be filled by appointment or by an election. An appointment could be made immediately, he said, and a current trustee could be appointed, but they would have to resign their seat on the board to be appointed mayor. Resigning a board seat would bring any attempt to recall that board member to an end.

Krob pointed out that there were many sensitive matters before the board; he recommended that the vacancy be filled as quickly as possible by someone who had participated in recent meetings, negotiations, and executive sessions.

Trustee Tim Caves recommended Stern, the current mayor pro tem, to fill the vacancy, calling him “the obvious choice.” Stern said he was willing to resign his seat on the board. Resident Harris asked to speak, but Stern said comments would not be accepted at that time. His decision was a departure from the board’s usual practice of allowing attendees to speak even outside the time allotted for public comments. Some of those present reacted angrily to Stern’s decision.

After Stern gaveled the crowd into silence, Ball moved to accept Stern’s resignation from the board. Ball, Caves, Dreher, Trustee Amy Hutson, and Stern himself voted to accept his resignation; Trustee Atis Jurka voted no. Following that vote, Jurka asked what was best for the town and suggested someone not under the cloud of a recall, as Stern was, would be the better choice. Jurka said he wanted the decision to be open to the citizens.

Jurka’s remarks were applauded by the crowd. Ball said she wanted someone familiar with the annexation that was under consideration by the board, as suggested by Krob. Hutson pointed out that although Stern was under recall, the success of the recall was not certain.

Ball, Caves, Dreher, Hutson, and Stern voted to appoint Stern as mayor. Jurka once again voted no. Following the vote, Town Administrator Dawn Collins administered Stern’s oath of office. Hutson was named mayor pro tem.

Collins suggested a two-week window to accept interest forms for the vacancy on the board created by Stern’s resignation as trustee.

During public comments, El Paso County Commissioner Bill Wysong, who represents Palmer Lake on the El Paso Board of County Commissioners, said in a republic politicians are elected to represent their voters and “you are continuing to stir the pot and it really disappoints me. The people of Palmer Lake I believe deserve to be heard. . .. I hope Palmer Lake can come together.” Wysong’s remarks were met with applause.

Harris, who was applauded when she rose to speak, also expressed her disappointment that a trustee facing a recall had been appointed mayor. She said it was not wise for the board to appoint a mayor. She has since announced her intention to apply for the vacancy on the board created by Stern’s resignation.

Resident Steve Draper reminded the board that Caitlin Quander, a land use attorney with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, who spoke at the hearing for Buc-ee’s second annexation petition on behalf of the Malone Family Foundation, had argued that the notification requirements for the second annexation eligibility hearing had not been met and she was ignored by the board. Draper asked that the final annexation hearing be postponed because the eligibility hearing was not valid.

Nancy Godbout Jurka, who is married to Trustee Atis Jurka, discussed Havenar’s text messages, arguing they proved the board colluded and wants to silence the community.

Goldman appointed to hear petition protest

Collins said the signatures collected to recall Ball, Dreher, and Stern could be protested during a 15-day period following their submission for validation: that deadline was June 6. The signatures collected to place an initiative on the ballot giving residents a vote on any annexation had a 40-day protest period, which ended on June 16. During the protest periods, signatures which had been verified by the town administrator could be challenged and perhaps invalidated. If enough signatures were to be invalidated, the recall would end. Collins recommended that the petition protest hearings be presided over by a third party, not a member of the town staff.

Collins recommended Karen Goldman to preside over the hearings. Goldman has extensive experience with Colorado election law, having served as deputy city clerk in Aurora, as city clerk in Lakewood and as the secretary of the Senate for the state of Colorado. Goldman has served as an election hearing officer in more than a dozen Colorado towns and cities, provides election training through the Colorado Municipal Clerk’s Association, and conducts election webinars through the Colorado Municipal League.

The board voted unanimously in favor of Resolution 48-2025, which designates Goldman as the hearing officer at a rate of $100 per hour.

Effort to stop recalls falls short

On June 19, Goldman convened a hearing to find facts and hear testimony regarding Yavanian’s challenge to the petitions to recall Ball and Dreher. Since Stern had already resigned his board seat to accept an appointment as mayor, his recall was not considered at the hearing.

Goldman began by reviewing facts and events that preceded the hearing:

• The recall petitions were approved by Collins as to their legal form on March 24.
• The minimum number of signatures needed to trigger a recall was 275.
• The recall petitions with signatures were filed on May 21, one day before the deadline. The Ball recall petition had 304 valid signatures and the Dreher petition had 300.
• On May 27, Collins determined that the signatures submitted were sufficient for the recalls to move forward.
• Yavanian filed his protest on June 2.

Goldman explained some of the legalities of the recall. She said the burden of proof was on Yavanian to prove that his allegations were enough to overturn Collins’ determination of sufficiency.

Goldman said Yavanian claimed Harris erred in providing a postal address with a P.O. Box, not a legal address. She said she would hear testimony only on this point, not on the broader issues regarding the recalls. She said Yavanian would testify first and could call witnesses. Then Harris or her representative would testify, and Yavanian would have a chance to respond.

Goldman pointed out that the hearing was an administrative meeting, not a public hearing, so the public would not be able to comment.

Goldman then swore in Yavanian, who testified that the statute governing recalls requires the address of the petition committee members and Harris had used a P.O. Box, which was not a legal address. P.O. Boxes can’t be used to open bank accounts or start businesses, he said, because they prove nothing regarding residency; anyone can get a P.O. Box in any community.

Goldman asked Yavanian if he was aware of anyone who signed the recall petition and then decided they shouldn’t have because Harris had used a P.O Box. Yavanian said he was not. Goldman went on to say it was her understanding that almost everyone in Palmer Lake has a P.O. Box. She asked if Yavanian was alleging that Harris was not a registered elector. He said he was not, but he said he had concerns about Harris’s residency. He did not support those concerns with any facts.

Goldman swore in Collins, who testified that when she received the recall petitions, she involved Judy Egbert of GovPro Consulting to assist her. Collins said she verified that the three members of the recall petition committee—Harris, Dailee Fagnant, and Cody Fouts—were all registered voters by using the Colorado Secretary of State’s website. Goldman asked Collins if Harris’s use of a P.O. Box concerned her; Collins said no since Harris was a registered voter in the town.

Goldman then swore in Grace Foy, a lawyer representing Harris. Foy testified that Harris was a resident of Palmer Lake and a registered voter. The Secretary of State’s website shows both Harris’s P.O. Box and her street address, she said. Foy noted that when the recall petitions were being reviewed for correctness by Collins, the use of a P.O. Box was not a concern and proof of residency was a requirement to obtain a free P.O. Box.

In her concluding remarks, Goldman said she would review documents and testimony and make her decision. She asked Dreher if he wanted to speak as he was one of the trustees being recalled. He said no. Goldman concluded the hearing.

On June 22, Goldman published her conclusion that the recalls of Ball and Dreher can proceed and she instructed the town to set a date for the recall elections.

Executive session convened; Collins announces last day

On June 23, the board met to hold an executive session. The agenda listed three reasons for the session: to confer with the town’s attorney on legal questions regarding pending litigation, to discuss negotiations regarding filling the town administrator vacancy created by Collins’ resignation, and to receive legal advice and input from the town’s lawyer regarding a possible annexation agreement for a proposed Buc-ee’s development.

In response to a question from a resident, Collins, who had announced her resignation from her position and her acceptance of a job in Blue Earth, Minn. previously, said her last day as Palmer Lake’s town administrator would be July 17.

Correction

The article covering Palmer Lake in the June issue of OCN misquoted Dan Guimond, senior principal at Economic and Planning Systems. Guimond in fact estimated Buc-ee’s water consumption at 1.19 million gallons per month, not 1.19 million gallons per year, as stated in the article.

**********

The next regular board meetings are scheduled for July 10 and 24. See the town’s website at www.townofpalmerlake.com to confirm times and dates of board meetings and workshops. Meetings are typically held on the second and fourth Thursdays of the month at the Town Hall. Information: 719-481-2953.

James Howald can be reached at jameshowald@ocn.me. Jackie Burhans can be reached at jackieburhans@ocn.me.

Other Palmer Lake Board of Trustees articles

• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, June 12, 19, 23, and 30 – Stern replaces Havenar as mayor; attempt to stop recalls fails (7/3/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, May 5, 8, 22, and 29 – Revised Buc-ee’s annexation eligibility petition approved (6/7/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, April 10 and 24 – Second Buc-ee’s annexation eligibility hearing scheduled (5/3/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Feb. 27, March 13 and 27 – Buc-ee’s rescinds annexation request; three board members face potential recall (4/5/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Feb. 11 and 13 – Board holds workshop on water issues (3/1/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Jan. 9 and 23 – Lakeview Heights development raises safety concerns (2/1/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Dec. 12 – Buc-ee’s annexation petition meets requirements (1/4/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Nov. 14 – 2025 budget proposed; 2024 budget amended (12/5/2024)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Oct. 10 and 24 – Board begins “flagpole annexation” process for Buc’ees travel center on I-25 (11/2/2024)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Sept. 12 and 26 – Board considers church’s request to use Elephant Rock property (10/5/2024)

• Studies of finances, water, and traffic presented
• Public hearing on annexation petition
• Attorney addresses litigation
• Petitioner’s presentation
• Public comments
• Approval by the board

By James Howald and Jackie Burhans

In May, the Palmer Lake Board of Trustees (PLBOT) took up a second, revised petition to annex a 24-acre plot of land south of County Line Road and west of I-25, which is the proposed site of a 74,000-square-foot Buc-ee’s travel center. The site is about 1.8 miles east of the current town boundary. The board held a workshop to review studies addressing the impact of the proposed travel center on the town’s finances, water infrastructure and traffic. The board held a special meeting on May 29 that included a public hearing on the second annexation petition and a vote on a resolution regarding eligibility for annexation.

Studies of finances, water, and traffic presented

On May 5, the PLBOT held a nearly five-hour special meeting to review three independent reports, all funded by Buc-ee’s. All board members attended, along with the town administrator, attorney, police chief, fire chief, and more than 50 residents, The reports analyzed the revenue, water, and traffic impacts if Buc-ee’s moves forward. Board members and attendees asked questions after the presentations. Based on feedback from this meeting, the fiscal report was updated on May 21. Find all three final reports at bit.ly/buc-ees-reports.

Senior Principal Dan Guimond presented Economic & Planning Systems’ (EPS) fiscal impact report. He outlined EPS’s analysis of the proposal, its timing, and estimated general fund revenue and expenses over several years.

Revenues from taxable retail sales are projected at $31.8 million in 2027, generating about $995,000 in sales taxes at current rates. However, municipalities often negotiate a 1.1% sales tax incentive with Buc-ee’s, potentially reducing revenue by $326,000. Gas sales are excluded, as those taxes go to the state. EPS estimates the one-time use tax during 18 months of construction to be $379,500. Property taxes are expected to rise significantly post-construction, reaching $400,000 in 2027, to be collected in 2028.

Expenses fall into three categories: town operating costs, capital costs for town departments that may or may not be reimbursed, and development-related capital costs that the developer covers. Guimond outlined operating and capital cost estimates for Palmer Lake Police, Fire, and Public Works. Operating costs would rise by $1 million, plus $5.9 million in one-time capital expenses.

Buc-ee’s is expected to spend $10.52 million on transportation upgrades, including improvements to I-25 and County Line Road, interchange ramps, signals, and turn lanes. Costs to extend the town’s water infrastructure would be $5.5 million and may be shared.

Guimond addressed board questions submitted by email. He said the sales tax incentive was discretionary and negotiable. EPS could not use data from Johnstown Buc-ee’s as it lacked full-year data, and there was no public data to review. The board asked why Buc-ee’s would cover only 25% of water upgrades. Guimond cited a GMS water report estimating Buc-ee’s annual usage at 1.19 million gallons per year, compared to total town consumption. Fire Department staffing estimates, he said, came from the Fire Chief John Vincent.

Havenar questioned why the report showed the town covering costs the developer should pay, calling some expenses inflated and revenue estimates conservative. She emphasized that development typically funds itself, per the Palmer Lake Master Plan.

Other board members asked about general fund expenditures, Fire Department estimates, and whether increases accounted for annexing properties along County Line Road. Public comments covered assumptions, actual costs, Buc-ee’s financial responsibility, and whether Monument Fire Department could continue servicing the property. Guimond said the report outlined assumptions and distinguished between pre-existing needs and Buc-ee’s impact. He noted EPS estimated costs, but did not address financing.

GMS Inc., an engineering firm that has advised Palmer Lake regarding water infrastructure, presented the second report. Senior Engineer and Project Manager Mark Morton summarized findings on Buc-ee’s increased water demands and necessary improvements. He said the report also accounts for long-term population growth and existing deficiencies. GMS listed $10.4 million in needed improvements including a waterline extension costing $5.6 million and facility upgrades for $4.8 million.

The board questioned recycling gray water vs. reclaiming water, the number and locations of wells, xeriscaping, and whether Buc-ee’s could proceed without annexing into Palmer Lake. In the public question portion, Rachel Zancanella, Division 2 engineer for the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DOWR), offered to meet and review Palmer Lake’s water portfolio and rights.

A resident raised concerns about depleting aquifers, long-term sustainability, and rising pumping costs. Morton expressed interest in further discussions with DOWR and emphasized the need for renewable water from non-tributary sources. Morton clarified that Buc-ee’s would connect to Monument Sanitation District for wastewater, not Palmer Lake Sanitation District.

Traffic Engineer Max Rusch of Stolfus & Associates presented the final report. He noted that Buc-ee’s conducted its own traffic study, which the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) would review for the I-25 interchange. Stolfus analyzed traffic at the I-25 ramps, the Beacon Lite Road and County Line Road intersection, and the Spruce Mountain Road and County Line intersection near town, finding little impact at the Spruce Mountain Road intersection.

Rusch said Stolfus conducted its own traffic counts and trip-generation analysis to assess Buc-ee’s proposed improvements. To account for summer peak volumes, Stolfus adjusted its traffic counts. Key findings showed that I-25 would function more efficiently with Buc-ee’s upgrades, full access should be allowed in and out of the church at Beacon Lite Road, and Buc-ee’s may need to modify its middle access left turn to accommodate queueing.

Rusch addressed board-submitted questions on residential driveways along Beacon Lite and left turns onto County Line. He said Stolfus did not anticipate egress issues and noted a dedicated through lane for left turns. While Stolfus did not conduct a formal safety study, Rusch did not expect Buc-ee’s to impact I-25 operations. The firm did not examine Beacon Lite and Highway 105, as it does not anticipate significant southbound traffic from Buc-ee’s. Attendees then asked about the traffic study used, count dates, seasonal adjustments, and whether Stolfus accounted for future development which it did not.

Readers can find links to the agenda, packet, and meeting videos at bit.ly/250505-plbot-special.

Public hearing on annexation petition

On May 29, the board held a special meeting that included opening remarks from Town Attorney Scott Krob and a public hearing that began with a presentation from Nina Ruiz of Vertex Consulting Services, who represented the annexation petitioner Monument Ridge West LLC. The meeting included public comments and ended with a vote on Resolution 46-2025, which confirmed annexation eligibility.

The meeting was held in the Palmer Lake Town Hall. In anticipation of a large turnout, the hall was reconfigured, moving the trustees up to the area in front of the fireplace and adding extra seating for up to 120 attendees. A large-screen TV with a livestream of the meeting was installed on the patio of the Town Hall for those who could not be seated. At least 30 people listened from outside the hall, trying to stay dry as light rain fell. Some of them complained to the board that they had trouble hearing the livestream.

Attorney addresses litigation

In his remarks preceding the public hearing, Krob addressed litigation filed by Integrity Matters (IM), a local nonprofit watchdog group. Krob argued board meetings had met the requirement of the state’s “sunshine laws,” which simply require meetings to be announced 24 hours before they are held. Krob said a temporary restraining order requested by IM requiring the special meeting to be moved to a larger venue had been denied by the court, which also denied a second motion from IM which claimed the meeting was in fact a closed meeting because everyone could not be seated. Krob said the court agreed the special meeting was an open meeting and everyone who wanted to be heard would be heard.

Krob addressed other concerns about the annexation process that had been raised by the community. He said the town was required to have a three-mile plan in place before the final decision to annex, not before the annexation eligibility hearing. He explained the second annexation petition before the board at the special meeting sought to annex the entire width of County Line Road, not just the southern half, which means the necessary contiguity can be achieved with three annexations instead of six. He stressed the special meeting was only to address the question of eligibility, and other issues would be addressed during a later meeting at which the final decision about whether to annex would be made. He reviewed the state statutes governing eligibility for annexation.

Petitioner’s presentation

Following Krob’s remarks, Mayor Glant Havenar opened the public hearing and Ruiz discussed the legal requirements that must be met for eligibility. Ruiz said the petition met the requirements of C.R.S 31-12-104, specifically:

• There is one-sixth contiguity between the town and the property to be annexed.
• There was no intent to use the land, which is vacant, for agricultural purposes.
• It was practical for the town to extend water service to the property on the same basis those services were provided to other citizens.
• The property was within the three-mile limit.

She went on to address the requirements of C.R.S. 31-12-105, arguing:

• The land to be annexed is under the ownership of a single person who has signed the annexation petition.
• The land is not being annexed into two municipalities at the same time.
• The annexation will not impact school district boundaries.
• The annexation will not extend municipal boundaries by more than three miles.
• An appropriate three-mile plan is in place.
• Owners of adjacent land have been notified.
• There are no additional requests to annex land along the path of the annexation.
• The request seeks to annex both sides of County Line Road, even though it is not platted and this requirement does not apply.
• Access is not denied by the annexation.
• The owners have signed the annexation request.

Public comments

Havenar then opened the hearing to comments from the public. Many of the speakers raised issues outside the limits of eligibility, such as water availability, light pollution, loss of property value, and a potential increase in crime. Despite the efforts of Havenar and Trustees Kevin Dreher and Dennis Stern to limit remarks to eligibility, many speakers were determined to make their points, resulting in the speaker and the mayor or board member talking over each other. In two instances these exchanges became so heated that Havenar called five-minute recesses to allow tempers to cool. Most of the speakers were opposed to the travel center.

Marty Brodzik questioned the legality of the hearing, since necessary documents had not been prepared 25 days before it was held.

Linda Von Matre said the integrity of the annexation procedure was compromised, because some attendees of the hearing on Dec. 12 had been forced to stand outside the too-small venue in cold weather. She said she believed the outcome was predetermined and faulted Havenar for meeting with Buc-ee’s lobbyist Mark Waller when the rest of the board was not present.

Caitlin Quander, an attorney speaking on behalf of the Malone Family Foundation, which was instrumental in the creation of the Greenland Open Space just north of property, cited concerns with the ability to integrate the site into the town and with open space, wildlife, and dark skies. She said requirements to announce meetings had not been met and the resolution to declare the property eligible for annexation listed the owner of the property incorrectly. The Malone Family Foundation had spent more than $90 million on the open space, she said, and is prepared to do what is necessary to protect it.

Kat Gayle, chief legal counsel of Integrity Matters, argued the hearing needed to abide by open meetings laws and questioned whether a real “community of interest” could exist between the town and the travel center.

Darren Fike asked how the property could be eligible for annexation if the travel center would violate the town’s ordinances regarding light pollution.

Roy Martinez argued the notices to adjacent landowners were premature and therefore invalid.

Christie Beverly said the community of interest requirements, which are more stringent for “flagpole” annexations, were not met because the site could not be urbanized as the law requires due to the protected open space to the north and the residences to the south.

Todd Messenger, a lawyer representing the United Congregational Church, which owns land between the town and the property to be annexed, also questioned whether the community of interest requirements were met.

Trustee Amy Hutson asked Krob to clarify the concept of “community of interest.” Krob said there was confusion in the community on this point and that the term means there is a common interest between property to be annexed and the town, potentially in the areas of traffic or tax revenue, and it does not mean the annexation is in the best interest of the community. That is addressed in the next step of the annexation process, he said.

Krob addressed some of the points raised by the public comments. He explained the conservation easement affects the north side of the property and restricts commercial development within the easement. The applicant doesn’t intend to use that part of the property for commercial purposes, he said. He argued the proposed travel center meets the requirement for urbanization.

Ruiz said she agreed with Krob’s conclusions.

Approval by the board

Following the public hearing, the board voted on a version of Resolution 46-2025, which had been amended to show the correct name of the property owner. Trustees Shana Ball, Tim Caves, Dreher, Hutson, Stern, and Mayor Havenar voted in favor; Trustee Atis Jurka voted nay. With six votes, the resolution passed. The vote was met with boos and shouts from the crowd.

**********

The next regular board meetings are scheduled for June 12 and 26. See the town’s website at www.townofpalmerlake.com to confirm times and dates of board meetings and workshops. Meetings are typically held on the second and fourth Thursdays of the month at the Town Hall. Information: 719-481-2953.

James Howald can be reached at jameshowald@ocn.me. Jackie Burhans can be reached at jackieburhans@ocn.me.

Other Palmer Lake Board of Trustees articles

• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, June 12, 19, 23, and 30 – Stern replaces Havenar as mayor; attempt to stop recalls fails (7/3/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, May 5, 8, 22, and 29 – Revised Buc-ee’s annexation eligibility petition approved (6/7/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, April 10 and 24 – Second Buc-ee’s annexation eligibility hearing scheduled (5/3/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Feb. 27, March 13 and 27 – Buc-ee’s rescinds annexation request; three board members face potential recall (4/5/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Feb. 11 and 13 – Board holds workshop on water issues (3/1/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Jan. 9 and 23 – Lakeview Heights development raises safety concerns (2/1/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Dec. 12 – Buc-ee’s annexation petition meets requirements (1/4/2025)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Nov. 14 – 2025 budget proposed; 2024 budget amended (12/5/2024)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Oct. 10 and 24 – Board begins “flagpole annexation” process for Buc’ees travel center on I-25 (11/2/2024)
• Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, Sept. 12 and 26 – Board considers church’s request to use Elephant Rock property (10/5/2024)