OCN

Volunteers reporting on community issues in Monument, Palmer Lake, and the surrounding Tri-Lakes area

OCN > 2305 > Monument Town Council, April – Land use bill, investigation loom

Monument Town Council, April – Land use bill, investigation loom

By Chris Jeub

The Monument Town Council meetings in April discussed enterprise zones and town investments as well as the looming state Senate Bill 23-213 that would undermine Monument’s permitting and zoning laws. But the majority of April was spent dealing with the independent investigation report presented Dec. 28, 2022, by the former Board of Trustees. Two executive meetings and two special meetings were called to specifically handle the investigation.

Actions include disavowing the results of the independent investigation, reinterpreting the results with a newly employed law firm, paying for the personal legal fees of the mayor, and addressing the CORA request from the previous mayor pro tem. The current board declared the investigation “over” with comments showing hope for the town to “move on.”

Enterprise zones and town investments discussed

On April 3, Town Administrator Laura Hogan presented an opportunity to expand the enterprise zone in Monument. This zone is intended to provide tax credits to businesses, and one area in Monument has recently become eligible. The proposed zone, located between Higby Road and Baptist Road on the east side of Interstate 25, aims to encourage businesses to come to Monument. El Paso County will bring the proposed zone to the state, and community members can help contribute to the development of businesses within the zone and receive tax benefits for doing so.

Council Member Jim Romanello asked for an explanation of the significance of the proposed zone. Hogan explained that it would be beneficial for the entire community. By encouraging businesses to come to Monument, the proposed enterprise zone could bring in new jobs and revenue for the town. Additionally, community members could contribute to the development of the businesses within the zone and receive tax benefits for doing so. Overall, the expansion of the enterprise zone presents an opportunity for growth and development for Monument and its residents.

The Council listened to three presentations discussing the investment of the town’s money. The presentations were given by Katiana Siatras from Wells Fargo, Bob Krug from CSafe, and Max Mojab and Nate Eckloff from Piper Sadler & Co. The Council was interested in investing to make more money due to changing interest rates. There was a discussion of the risks associated with investing with banks, and securities were recommended as the most secure and liquid type of investment. Town Manager Mike Foreman is seeking direction to find the best proposal for the town.

Colorado Senate Bill 23-213

The Monument Council discussed state Senate Bill 23-213, which they claim would override the town’s zoning and permit laws and transfer power to the state. All Council members stated that they believed this would be an overreach of state power and could affect local issues such as housing, water, infrastructure, and police. Council Member Steve King expressed concern that the bill would benefit “millionaire owners” of multi-family housing units and could lead to the construction of rental buildings.

Mayor Mitch LaKind announced he would be forming a coalition of mayors in El Paso County to protest the bill. He stated, however, that “the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce is in favor of it, which I find strange.” LaKind warned that he would not comply if the bill passes and that it will be difficult to get anything built for the state if the Pikes Peak Regional Building Department (PPRBD) also refuses to comply.

During public comment, residents expressed their opposition to the bill, and council members mentioned that Rep. Don Wilson and Rep. Paul Lundeen were also against it. President and CEO of the Tri-Lakes Chamber of Commerce Terri Hayes expressed opposition to the bill but explained that the Colorado Springs Chamber sees it as a way to bring more people to town. “They see it as a way to solve their labor shortages,” she said.

King read a letter written collectively by the Town Council to oppose Senate Bill 23-213. They argued that the bill would eliminate their ability to zone multi-family housing to locations where the infrastructure is in place, remove their discretion to place certain criteria on multi-family housing, allow the character of neighborhoods to be destroyed by forcing incompatible land uses directly adjacent to single-family homes, mandate expensive studies relative to housing and water resources, and shift the burden and responsibility of what have traditionally been local decisions up to “a state agency.” The letter claimed the bill reflects the state’s belief that “it knows far more about what’s best for the quality of life in their communities than their own citizens do,” and they urged legislators to reject the bill.

The Town Council is also working on a plan to mitigate the impact of the bill if it is passed. After LaKind pledged to not comply, King added, “We will do everything we can to make sure that this bill does not have a negative impact on Monument.”

See letter “Monument Town Council opposes bill” in Letters to the Editor on page < 24 >.

Investigation declared over, CORA request suggests otherwise

Two executive sessions and two special meetings were called to address the investigation report of Dec. 28, 2022. See January’s OCN article for complete reporting of the December special meetings leading up to the investigation findings and recommendations to the Town Council.

Background: The previous Board of Trustees launched the investigation late in the 2022 election cycle that accused the Home Rule Charter Commission of electioneering and fraud. The investigation called for publicly censuring much of the newly elected Council (King, Abbott, Kronick, LaKind), the termination of the town manager and other employees, and filing ethics complaints against the previous town attorney. None of the recommendations has been adopted by the new Council.

April 3: Monument pays for LaKind’s personal attorney: The Town Council broke to executive session to seek guidance from Town Attorney Bob Cole on specific legal questions relating to the report of the investigation findings. Following the session, most members of the public left and three people remained online. An action item was taken to instruct the town manager to pay Mayor LaKind’s personal attorney fees that incurred during December’s investigation. The action item read: “Sherman & Howard Invoice No. 862015 to Mitchell LaKind for Professional Services, 12/22/22 through 1/31/23.” The item passed 6-0 with LaKind—since it benefited him financially—recusing himself from the vote. The council did not disclose the amount of the fees.

Council Member Laura Kronick noted that everyone had to sit through what she called “a debacle” at the end of last year. Kronick referenced “one person” [LaKind] who “stood up and did the right thing.” King added that the town was left without an attorney at the time, and LaKind had taken it upon himself to “handle the situation.” Council Member Jim Romanello put forth the motion. The meeting adjourned without public comment.

April 11: Investigation disavowed and declared over: The first of two special meetings was called on April 11 to bring the investigation findings to a close with proposed resolutions 26, 27, and 28. The investigation itself was not discussed outside of executive session, but the resolutions all passed unanimously. Kronick, LaKind, and Council Member Abbott recused themselves for some of the votes. The resolutions disavowed the investigation, authorized “actions” toward the appointed independent investigator Grant Van Der Jagt, and authorized payment to another law firm, Sherman & Howard. Public comment came from two members of the public who expressed support for the Council’s decisions, and one asking for information on the reports.

Though the Council disavowed the investigation, LaKind expressed how he, as a mayoral candidate at the time, promised to continue the investigation “wherever it led.” LaKind admitted the investigation “took longer than expected and cost taxpayers a lot of money,” but insisted it was done thoroughly. He then said he hopes “the town can heal and move forward” now that the investigation is over. He also mentioned that mistakes were made, but they were not intentional, and a process is now in place to remedy them.

April 17: Former Mayor Pro Tem Elliott questions town endorsements: Former Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Elliott raised concerns during public comment. She brought up a mailer from the Tri-Lakes Chamber of Commerce, which included a letter from Mayor LaKind welcoming new residents to the area that she claimed promoted businesses in Denver and Colorado Springs, not Monument. LaKind responded by stating that he did not know his name was going out beyond the scope of Monument. Elliott then brought up a $1,500 purchase by LaKind at the Tri-Lakes Chamber Annual Dinner for a suite at a Sky Sox game, and asked whether it was a town budgeted item or a personal item. LaKind refused to answer, saying that he would not respond to questions about his personal finances.

Hayes added to the public comment by clarifying that the mailer was sent out by a privately owned welcome wagon company and had nothing to do with the Town of Monument. LaKind requested that his name not be sent out in any future mailers promoting businesses outside of Monument and stated that he would not have added his name to the mailer if he had known it was being used to promote businesses in Denver and Colorado Springs.

April 26: Invoice of legal fees delivered to former mayor pro tem: A special town meeting was held April 26 to discuss a CORA request (a formal request to public records under the Colorado Open Records Act) asking for the receipt for the attorney fees paid to LaKind’s personal attorney. Town lawyer Bob Cole disclosed a conflict of interest by LaKind for two agenda items that dealt with the request. The Council voted 5-0 to accept the disclosure and exempt LaKind from the meeting. The Council also voted to rescind attorney client privilege and avoid an executive session “to allow complete transparency,” as stated by King.

Kronick read a statement expressing that the Council should vote to give Kelly Elliott, the former mayor pro tem who made the request, the invoice she requested. Kronick claimed the invoice “proves no taxpayers’ dollars were spent to personally aid Mayor LaKind” and that she “hope[s] that Kelly Elliott ceases her attacks on the Town and the associated tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars spent each time another failed attempt is made to justify the pursuit of a $2,500 honest mistake that was legally cured prior to her initial call for an investigation that began last year.” She ended her statement with the hope that this will “end this chapter in Monument’s history.”

The Council voted unanimously to grant the request (Council Member Marco Fiorito was absent) before the meeting adjourned. Foreman published a press release which claimed to justify the invoice of April 3. “The Town Council considered the Interim Town Attorney’s opinion that legal services described in the invoice related to providing for the interests of the Town of Monument and therefore it is both legal and appropriate for the Town to pay the invoice.”

**********

The Monument Council usually meets at 6:30 p.m. on the first and third Mondays of each month at Monument Town Hall, 645 Beacon Lite Road. The next two regular meetings are scheduled for Monday, May 1 and Monday, May 15. Call 719-884-8014 or see www.townofmonument.org for information. To see upcoming agendas and complete board packets or to download audio recordings of past meetings, see http://monumenttownco.minutesondemand.com and click on Town Council.

Chris Jeub can be reached at chrisjeub@ocn.me.

Other Monument Town Council, April articles