Editor’s Note: Bill Brown is married to Estes Valley Voice Founder and Editor Patti Brown, who recused herself from any and all involvement in this article. Suzy Blackhurst, Senior Editor.
Allegations of “intimidation” and “bullying” have been filed against Town Trustee Bill Brown based on comments he made during the consideration of a rezoning request during last week’s town board meeting.
Estes Park resident Christy Jacobs submitted the complaint via the town’s public elected officials email list, a Google Group used for official communications and public messages to trustees. The email requests that the complaint be entered into the official record regarding the town board’s proceedings on Ordinance 04-26, a request to rezone the property at 440 Valley Rd from RM (Multi-Family Residential) to A-1 (Accommodations, Low-Intensity).
Jacobs’ complaint alleges Trustee Brown’s comments were “inconsistent” with the Estes Park Town Board Code of Conduct and Operating Principles (Policy 103) and “constituted intimidation/bullying of community members.”
During the trustee discussion of the rezoning request, Trustee Brown said, “I would have approved this were it not for Ballot Issue 300, but I want to mention one really ironic thing about this, and that is there were two emails or letters, I’m not sure which, to the town board recommending that we approve them.”
“Those two emails, where one was from one of the sponsors of Ballot Issue 300, and the other was one of the co-defendants with that sponsor or co-plaintiffs with that sponsor in the lawsuit against the town and against the developer of the property on Peak View,” Brown said.
“So that’s, you know, that’s the consequences of those acts. We said this is going to stop development, and it’s proving to be the case,” Brown said.
Only when trustees “intentionally and repeatedly do not follow proper conduct” are sanctions issued, “as deemed appropriate by the town board,” according to Policy 103. Policy 103 states that trustees are to act in a “professional manner” at all times and “not make comments that are belligerent, personal attacks, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive, or disparaging.” Brown did not directly mention Jacobs or any community member by name in his comment.
Town Policy 103 sets expectations for trustee conduct, but resident complaints do not automatically trigger a formal investigation or disciplinary action. Instead, the policy says that intentional and repeated infractions may result in a reprimand or formal censure by the town board.
As of publication, no such action has been scheduled or announced.
“I’m planning on requesting that the town board take up and consider the application of rule or policy 103 to this complaint filed by Christy Jacobs,” said Brown.
Jacobs’ complaint made three requests for corrective action from the town: formally acknowledge the complaint and enter it into the official record, conduct a “formal review and corrective response” to Brown’s remarks, and “provide public clarification that community members will not be bullied, intimidated, or publicly targeted for participating in constitutionally lawful civic processes, including submitting written comments to the town.”
Jacobs wrote in her complaint, “These remarks singled out and publicly characterized private community members based on their civic activity and/or unrelated legal involvement.”
Mayor Gary Hall acknowledged receipt of the complaint in an email reply Sunday morning by saying, “Received, acknowledged.”
During the Jan. 27 Estes Park Town Board meeting, trustees also declined a rezoning request for the property at 179 Stanley Circle Drive, citing Ballot Issue 300 as the reason for denying both requests.
The trustees agreed that the new zoning ordinance applies, even though applications for rezoning properties at 179 Stanley Circle Dr. and 440 Valley Road, another property considered for rezoning, had been filed prior to the November vote that approved Ballot Issue 300. Neither application complied with all the stipulations required by Ballot Issue 300, including obtaining written consent from two-thirds of the property owners within 500 feet of the property in question. Therefore, trustees said they could not approve the rezoning requests.
Jacobs’ complaint also alleges that Trustee Brown “mischaracterized the purpose and content” of her written email as supporting the approval of rezoning the property at 440 Valley Rd.
“My letter was submitted in support of corrective action intended to address a zoning error or mistake made by the county/town. I specifically expressed support for correcting that error, and my written comments were not presented as support for unrelated development or political objectives,” wrote Jacobs.
While Jacobs said Brown mischaracterized her intent, her email to the board expressed “strong support for the re-zoning request,” which she said was tied specifically to correcting what she described as a past town rezoning error.
Jacobs told the Estes Valley Voice she has no further comment on the complaint.