BOCC: Clinic Board Chair
Defends Clinic Performance
Update: Accused of Illegal Electioneering
Tourism Board Members Issue?
Kerfuffle Ensues

Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC)

—April 30, 2018
WESTCLIFFE, Colo.

by Jackie Bubis
The Board agreed to cancel the Executive session scheduled for 2 p.m. They approved the minutes of the April 18th meeting.
Commissioner Items
Commissioner Canda reported on attending the Justice Center committee meeting. At the E-911 meeting there was a discussion on the IGA for sharing costs on the towers used by emergency services. He stated that the Road & Bridge department may be able to do more than anticipated this year because of lack of snow plowing. Mr. Canda had a conversation with Armstrong Engineering regarding some of the upgrades at the airport that the new owners of the south part of Wolf Springs Ranch are wanting – and are willing to pay for. There will need to be a study – funded by these new owners – of the load capacity of the existing runway. He also confirmed that he is registered for the Mountain Connect conference in Vail later this year.
Commissioner Printz attended the Upper Ark Council of Government meeting and stated that all the represented counties are having issues finding a place that will recycle plastic grocery bags. This topic also came up at the local recycling meeting. He mentioned that the Town of Westcliffe is buying the CMB building and will be moving their operations there. He attended a Custer County Kids Council meeting and reported that the agreement for the school to sponsor the council’s one employee was no longer viable. This employee is paid by grant money but must have a sponsor. Printz will look into how it might work for the county to become that sponsor and report back. The Affordable Housing group is looking at forming a Custer County Housing Authority to have a mechanism to apply for grant money. He also reported that the Justice Center committee (that was looking seriously at purchasing land adjacent to the existing courthouse as reported last month) is now leaning toward using land that the county already owns. (JB:This begs the question whether this property will require the citizens to travel between county properties to do their business instead of having all county services centrally located.)
Chairman Flower requested that a meeting be scheduled between CCEDC and Affordable Housing to firm up their agreement to split the cost of the Affordable Housing study. The E-911 board voted to upgrade system hardware and software and they have saved up the money to do it. He also stated the importance of getting the word out to the citizens in four areas: Affordable Housing, the Landfill, the Justice Center, and (though the BOCC has no authority in the area) Round Mountain Water.
Mr. Flower also attended and Internet Portal Authority Conference, a meeting about agriculture’s reactions to natural disaster, the Upper Arkansas Workforce meeting, the Weed Advisory Board, and the 4-H speech contest.
Attorney Items:
Mr. Smith reviewed the E-911 Authority Contract. He has not gotten a response from Tom Redmond’s representative regarding the airport. He worked with the sheriff on a personnel issue and is in talks with Claudia Morris regarding the access to the right of way to the towers on Hibbs Peak.
There were no Administrative items.
New Business:
The vouchers were approved unanimously.
The BOCC adjourned and went into business as the Board of Health for an item from Jackie Hobby from Planning and Zoning. She needed approval on the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (septics) regulation update. The Board approved her request and there will be 45 days for the public to have input before the regulations are in effect.
When the BOCC came back in to session, they were updated by Bob Tobin on the West Custer County Hospital District. He was clearly there to challenge the views of the “Patients First” candidates. He provided a HANDOUT and went over some of the numbers. He stated that “we see everyone that comes in,” and countered the charge citizens would have to go below to get stitches. (Editor/GG: Simply not true.) He reported that the clinic sees 181 patients per week. He went over what personnel the clinic has. He stated that the current board has brought the clinic from warnings from the auditor to making money. He stated that telemedicine is the future and they are working toward more of that to get access to more specialists.
Mr. Tobin stated that the first call ambulance crew is paid to be at the ambulance barn. The standby crew is told to be within 20 minutes of the barn. If that crew is called out, the standby crew is “toned out and told to come in.” (Editor/GG: Mr. Tobin dodged the big question here. You can call a 2nd crew, but if they are out of the county, you have a long, long wait. Why, after a huge mill levy increase in 2014 we still do not have consistent 2nd ambulance availability. Just recently there were multiple incidents where the Sheriff’s Office had to call Flight for Life or Deer Mountain EMS for an emergency because there was no second ambulance available. This happens often (listen to a scanner or talk with the Sheriff’s Office). You can “toned out” or call for a 2nd crew but if they live outside of Custer County (like most EMS does now because all the local EMS folks were fired or quit over the last 6 years) you essentially do NOT have a second ambulance.) He also stated that there are 14 personnel: one Paramedic, one soon-to-be Intermediate, and eight Basic EMT’s – only two of which live in the county. The four drivers do live in the county.
Mr. Printz endorsed the current board saying that they have “my full support.”
Chairman Flower asked some good questions. He asked how many days will the new medical director will be present at the clinic. Mr. Tobin did not have an answer at this time. He went on to say that there is a difference between what’s possible here in Custer County vs what is desirable and that some expectations are unreasonable. When queried about the mill levy – he responded that the total mill levy is 7.908 mills, of which 3 mills is for EMS.
He stated that the board is not contemplating selling the clinic but perhaps affiliating with a larger group. When challenged about the clinic not participating in sharing costs for the towers, Tobin responded that they were willing to meet and discuss the issue. Finally, when Mr. Flower asked what the biggest challenge the clinic has, Mr. Tobin responded “continuing on and trying to make the clinic better.” He also mentioned the high level of turnover, some not lasting even six months. (Editor/GG: Still NO full time doctor at the clinic. Why?)
Next on the agenda was a question raised several months ago by Mr. Canda regarding the membership of the Tourism Board. Bob Weisenbach, chairman of the Tourism Board, started off by stating that he has been on the board since 2007 and that there has “never been a plurality of people from what I would consider as the classic tourism industry.” He then began enumerating the accomplishments of the current board. Mr. Printz interrupted and “cut to the chase”, accusing this reporter of making an issue of this Tourism Board. At my denial, he insisted that it was “on the record.”
The topic was brought up in February when Mr. Canda learned that, according to the resolution voted on by the public to enact the bed tax, the board members must be “from the tourism industry.” The concern from Mr. Canda was primarily that there was a legal document that specified the makeup of the board and he simply wanted to make sure that the BOCC was in compliance with this law. (Editor/GG: The resolution signed into law by a previous BOCC creating the Tourism Board states that the Board members must be from the “Tourism Industry in Custer County”. Apparently, most of the Board isn’t. This seems to have upset the current Board members who apparently are in violation of the law.)
The meeting got heated. Attorney Smith presented a MEMO citing how the original state tourism board was made up and that there was no definition of the term “tourism industry”. He then went on to say that he’d given it more thought and that his legal opinion was that all the current members qualified. Mr. Canda stated that Mr. Smith’s original EMAIL was narrower in defining “tourism industry”. (The email says, “so I suppose it could be construed to include motel owners, restaurant owners, gift shop owners, bar owners, and other business people who cater to tourists in one capacity or another.”) Mr. Canda wondered about Smith’s change in opinion. Bob Weisenbach and Brent Bruser (board member) brought up the bylaws of the board, which, in Smith’s memo are trumped by the Resolution. (Editor/GG: Mr. Smith seems to have made an about face here. Why? It is perfectly clear the Resolution creating the Tourism Board requires Board members to be in the local “Tourism Industry”. Just common sense. And the founding Resolution trumps any bylaws created by the Board. Wrong again, Attorney Smith.)
Both Mr. Bruser and Greg Smith (board members) were quite agitated in expressing their feelings of being insulted and slandered, despite Canda’s assertion that their contributions to the board were extremely valuable and that he was only questioning whether they were in the “tourism industry”. Mr. Printz apologized effusively to Mr. Bruser. (Editor/GG: Seems some folks get bent out of shape pretty quick over imagined issues. Pretty common downtown.)
Mr. Flower again brought up that there was no official definition of “tourism industry.” Mr. Canda’s opinion was that someone in the tourism industry made their living from tourism. After an hour-long discussion, Mr. Flower finally asked Mr. Weisenbach to work with his board to come up with a definition and also to decide if each board member qualified by statute to be on the board.
Next on the agenda was an update from Mr. Printz on the waterless urinal at the Wetmore Community Center. He has found a YouTube video that may have solved the problem.
A Special Events Permit was granted for the San Isabel Land Trust for the sale of alcohol at the Hardscrabble Mountain Trail Run.
The Custer County Economic Development Corporation (CCEDC) met with the Board on several topics. First was a request for $9,500 for a study on the economic impact of the broadband plan in the area, necessary to submit with the application for the $1M EDA (federal) grant. Mr. Printz asked if the previous study wasn’t sufficient. Mr. Bogle replied that it wasn’t. There was ongoing discussion about the economic development line item in the budget. The CCEDC has already committed to going in on the cost of an affordable housing study and there was another upcoming request for money from this fund on the agenda. Mr. Printz stated that the budget was “fluid” and that if the CCEDC used up all that money, the Board could certainly move more money into that line item. After discussion, the Board approved the $9,500 for the study.
When asked by a citizen about the landowners at the tower locations approval, Mr. Mullen (CCEDC) stated that for every unfriendly landowner, there are friendly landowners and that it wouldn’t be an issue. (Editor/GG: We already know of one land owner who will refuse the CCEDC.)
Regarding the REDI grant for an economic development strategic plan that was approved recently by the BOARD, Mr. Bogle requested additional funds be approved for matching funds for that grant. DOLA has stated that the chances were better of getting this grant if the county approved matching funds of between $3k and $5K. Originally, there was no county money requested for this grant but the argument was that we have a good working relationship with DOLA and we needed to show good faith. The motion was first suggested that the Board approve $3K matching funds. Mr. Flower suggested that $4K would be more appropriate to keep the relationship friendly. The motion was ultimately amended to $4,500 and approved. This money will come out of the economic development line in the budget as well.
A citizen wondered about trusting promises that “no county money” would be required when groups ask for approval by the BOCC.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:43 p.m.

Update: Tobin accused of
Illegal Electioneering

During the public comment time at the meeting on May 2nd, Ann Barthrop from the “Patients First” slate, challenged the commissioners regarding the political nature of Mr. Tobin’s presentation during the April 30th meeting. She believes that the Board, as a government agency, was wrong to not stop Mr. Tobin’s presentation as it was political in nature. All three commissioners and the county attorney agreed that it was a campaign speech and that it was inappropriate for the Clinic to use the BOCC forum for that purpose. Chairman Flower stated, “I agree with you that we were set up.” He went on to say that “clearly it was a political ploy” and he felt used and a little duped but didn’t feel he had the grounds to gavel the presentation.