Article as it appeared in the TG.
Chamber makes a public appeal to move negotiations on settling lawsuit forward
By John Cordsen
Negotiations between the Town and the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce to resolve an ongoing lawsuit appear to have stalemated. The Chamber made a public appeal during Tuesday night’s trustee meeting to move the negotiations forward.
For the past five months a Town committee and chamber representatives have been trying to reach an out-of-court agreement to end a lawsuit filed by the Chamber against the Town in May 2005. The Chamber lawsuit alleged the CVB marketing fees were an illegal tax implemented by Town officials and the suit questioned Estes Park’s right, as a statutory municipality, to spend sales tax dollars to create a Convention and Visitors Bureau.
A Larimer County District Court ruled in October 2005 that the Town had statutory authority to establish a CVB, but said the Town’s two-percent fee charged to out-of-town members is an improper tax.
The Town was ordered to immediately stop charging the revenue-based fees and to refund money collected under the fee schedule — an estimated $15,000 paid by 14 out-of-town lodging establishments. Town officials agreed not to oppose the court decision and authorized CVB staff to return the funds.
The Estes Park Chamber of Commerce filed an appeal, challenging the legality of the Town to form and operate a Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB).
In October 2006, the Town put an offer on the table that included monetary assistance to the Chamber in return for the lawsuit being dropped and other conditions, primarily the definition and understanding of each entity’s responsibilities. Under the agreement, the Town would be responsible for marketing Estes Park and the Chamber would be a business advocate providing business services to members.
In return, the Chamber would receive up to $14,000 in the first full year of the agreement.
Chamber representatives said that provisions within the latest proposal were unacceptable.
Chamber spokesman Paul Paget read a prepared statement Tuesday night outlining the Chamber position.
“… when the Town board submitted its final formal agreement documents for the Chamber signature, unacceptable conditions had been added. These changes and additions dashed the apparent progress to reach an out-of-court settlement, leaving the lawsuit at its original Court of Appeals status.”
The Chamber, in its prepared statement, objected to the Town’s required release by the Baldpate Inn and Norm and Dee Pritchard as plaintiffs in the appeals case.
“On May 9, 2006 when these plaintiffs requested to withdraw from the appeals case leaving the Chamber as sole plaintiff, the Town disallowed their request. Now, in a seeming turnaround, the Town is requiring their withdrawal from the appeals case, thus making the current proposed agreement unacceptable,” read Paget from the Chamber’s prepared statement.
The Chamber put forth a three-prong proposal to counter the Town’s most recent offer.
In it, the Chamber proposed that:
“The Chamber shall not be required to obtain a release of the lawsuit from co-plaintiffs, the Baldpate Inn and Norm and Dee Pritchard.” The Chamber contends the Town should pursue agreements with the plaintiffs individually.
“Plaintiffs will consider a revised out-of-court settlement agreement offer containing more reasonable monies to assist with restoration funding, housing and personnel necessary to re-establish a fully functioning chamber of commerce organization.”
“It is strongly recommended that both organizations pursue, forthwith, the formation of a revolutionary joint-venture-synergistic partnership that provides for maintenance of individual identities, meanwhile providing for pragmatic public services…”
Estes Park Mayor John Baudek said the Chamber, bringing the issue unannounced to the meeting and presenting their case in the public comment portion “undermines the current negotiation process between the Town committee and the Chamber representatives.”
Estes Park administrator Randy Repola explained that the Town felt blindsided by the unannounced public appeal from the Chamber. He concurred with the mayor that the actions may hamper negotiations.
“The current offer is in question,” said Repola. “It may no longer be available.”
This is the text delivered to the Trustees last Tuesday night, by Paul Paget on behalf of the Chamber board.
January 9, 2006
“Good evening, Citizens, Mayor Baudek, Board of Trustees, Staff and local Press.
I stand before you, not just as Chamber Board member, but as a concerned business owner, property owner and taxpaying citizen to speak openly regarding the deadlock between you, the Town’s governing body, and the Chamber of Commerce, the representative body of our business community.
Over the past 5 months, representatives of the Estes Park Board of Trustees and the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors have attempted to resolve many of the key issues contained in the current lawsuit between the Town and the Chamber of Commerce now in the hands of the Colorado Court of Appeals. Both parties seem to wish to reach an out-of-court settlement on multiple points of contention, and proceed with a more permanent, productive, and cooperative relationship.
Preliminary discussions between Town representatives and Chamber representatives appeared to point toward eventual resolution. For the betterment of all, in certain issues, we agreed to respectfully disagree and set those matters aside. We did find many areas of agreement and worked to proceed forward in those areas. However; when the Town Board submitted its final formal Agreement documents for Chamber signature, unacceptable conditions had been added. These changes and additions dashed the apparent progress to reach an out-of-court settlement, leaving the lawsuit at its original Court of Appeal status.
Persisting, and following the axiom that “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts,” The Estes Park Chamber of Commerce submits the following alternatives for resolution of the existing disagreements between the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce and the Estes Park Town Government. This statement does not wish to convey fault, blame, or wrongdoing, on anyone’s part. Please consider the tone and spirit as conciliatory as we merely intend to state the factual state of the matter, and offer possible alternatives which can obviate Win/Lose conditions. Resolution further affords “face saving” and redirects energies toward future positive outcomes.
The Chamber of Commerce, together with Plaintiffs The Baldpate Inn, LTD, a Colorado corporation and citizens Norm & Dee Pritchard find the latest Town out-of-court settlement Agreement unacceptable.
Most specific is the Town’s required release by The Baldpate Inn and the Pritchards as plaintiffs in this appeals case. On May 9, 2006 when these plaintiffs requested to withdraw from the appeals case leaving the Chamber as sole plaintiff, the Town disallowed their request. Now, in a seeming turnaround, the Town is requiring their withdrawal from the appeals case, thus making the current proposed agreement unacceptable.
The Chamber of Commerce now offers the following proposal for the Town’s consideration:
(1) The Chamber shall not be required to obtain a release of the lawsuit from co-plaintiffs, The Baldpate Inn and Norm & Dee Pritchard. The Town should pursue agreements directly with each plaintiff. If the Chamber & the Town’s mutual goal is to move forward assisting our business community by way of a strong Chamber of Commerce with a Town government that actively listens to and supports business concerns, then we can clearly demonstrate these roles by having an agreement completed ASAP. It is unreasonable to assume the Chamber can make decisions for individuals or specific businesses, but instead the Chamber is bound to act in the best interest of all of its members.
(2.) Plaintiffs will consider a revised, Out of Court, Agreement offer containing more reasonable monies to assist with restoration funding, housing, and personnel necessary to re-establish a fully functioning Chamber of Commerce organization.
(3.) It is strongly recommended that both organizations pursue, forthwith, the formation of a revolutionary Joint-Venture-synergistic partnership that provides for maintenance of individual identities, meanwhile providing for pragmatic public services. The vision of our Chamber includes moving forward in a synergistic partnership with Town government and all business organizations to maximize our limited resources, working together to do more in less redundant ways. Fully functioning models for this concept exist, not only throughout the country, but as near as the city and county of Denver. It is suggested that a bipartisan, “think-tank” group mediated by non-biased third party professionals, be charged with the assignment to create, design, and implement this operation. The initial plan would require a structure similar to the following:
· Goals (to consist not more than three ), · Strategy (one comprehensive statement), · Objectives for each goal (with measurability required), · Tactics (including specific assignments and milestone reports)
If both parties agree to aggressively pursue number 3, above, temporary operational activities can coexist while the ideal permanent plan is created and implemented. These probably should be determined under the mediated umbrella as well.
In conclusion, these concepts may, in fact, provide an opportunity for the community to capture desired favorable publicity, not only in the local area, but, not inconceivably, the national arena. We have much to gain, and risk much should we fail to resolve these concerns.
Thank you for your time and allowing me to address this most important issue.”
The Estes Parkian received a copy of the agreement the Chamber was willing to sign in fact the new board of the Chamber upon being seated voted to drop the case already in the Colorado Court of Appeals, for basically nothing in return. It is rather lengthy so in the interest of keeping this article relatively readable I didn’t post it but it amounts to a capitulation to the Mayor, for $14,000.00 and a seat on the CVB board.
If you watched this episode on television, as I did, all sorts of questions washed through my mind.
Why would the town even want to negotiate with the Chamber over a position in the applet court unless the Town had a very poor position? Why couldn’t the Chamber figure that out?
Why would the Chamber of Commerce want to negotiate anything with the Town of Estes Park? You would think these people in the Chamber would still have bleeding open wounds from the back stabbing they got during the Fulfillment Task Force Tom Foolery and the eviction. The Chamber of Commerce reminds me a lot of the French Army, born to loose, born to retreat, born to postulate with the spine of a noodle.
The Chamber of Commerce wanted to give up their legal position and bend over for the town and couldn’t even pull that off. So if I have gotten all this information correct the Chamber no longer wants to pursue a legal position against the town but one of the other plaintiffs does?
The most telling was the fit hizzoner pitched. That man got his panties all in a bunch because he loves his back room negotiations. He loves to operate out of the eye of the public and blew a cork because Paul Paget brought the silly situation into the light of day.
Email comments or whatever to : estesparkian@yahoo.com
Thanks
