REQUEST for Corrective Action - RE: Clarification Requested: Post-Closure Reading of Written Comment in Quasi-Judicial Hearing (Resolution 103-25, Dec. 9, 2025)

[Christy A. Jacobs]

January 7, 2026

To:  Travis Machalek

Cc:  Jason Damweber, Town Clerk, Mayor Gary Hall, Pro Tem Marie Cenac, Trustees Mark Igel, Frank Lancaster, Cindy Younglund, Kirby Hazelton, Bill Brown.

New Subject: Request for Corrective Action — Quasi-Judicial Record Closure Procedures (Resolution 103-25)

Mr. Machalek,

Thank you for confirming that the Town has no written policy governing public comments submitted after noon but before the first meeting of the evening in quasi-judicial matters, and that the Town instead relies on a practice of making “every reasonable effort” to provide such comments at the dais and include them in the final packet. I also understand that you do not intend to provide further clarification.

However, the central concern remains unresolved: during a quasi-judicial hearing, a co-applicant communication was read into the record after the Mayor formally closed the public hearing and immediately prior to the vote—without reopening the record and without providing an opportunity for response while the record was open. 

Notably, there were multiple opportunities for that co-applicant letter to be presented during the open public hearing, including during applicant comments. Instead, it was read only after the hearing was formally closed. This confirms that the Town’s quasi-judicial process is currently relying on an unwritten and discretionary practice, even when substantive communications are introduced after the public hearing has been closed.

 To be clear, the due-process question remains:

Was the Board permitted to consider and read a co-applicant’s written comment after the Mayor closed the public hearing without reopening the record and allowing an opportunity to respond?

Because the Town has confirmed there is no written policy governing this scenario, I am requesting corrective action to ensure procedural consistency and due process protections in future quasi-judicial matters:

1. Adopt a written quasi-judicial procedure stating that once the public hearing is closed, no additional evidence, testimony, or written comment is introduced unless the Board formally reopens the record;

 

2. Establish a standard staff procedure for communications received shortly before or during a quasi-judicial hearing (including receipt, distribution, disclosure on the record, and timing); and

 

3. Provide training or guidance to ensure these procedures are applied consistently to protect residents, applicants, and the Town.

Please advise who is responsible for developing and implementing these quasi-judicial procedures and when the Town anticipates addressing this gap.

This isn’t about the outcome of Resolution 103-25 — it’s about whether the process is fair and consistent for everyone.

Because this is a matter of public process and public trust, I intend to share these concerns publicly.

 

Respectfully,
Christy Jacobs - Resident

---

From: Travis Machalek <tmac...@estes.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 2:28 PM
To: Christy A. Jacobs <c...@ap-tm.com>
Cc: Jason Damweber <jdam...@estes.org>; Town Clerk <town...@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Clarification Requested: Post-Closure Reading of Written Comment in Quasi-Judicial Hearing (Resolution 103-25, Dec. 9, 2025)

 

Good afternoon Ms. Jacobs,

As I noted in my previous email, the written public comment was submitted prior to the Town Board meeting. Our practice has been to make every reasonable effort to make public comments submitted before the first meeting of the evening available at the dais to the Board (and to include the comments in the final packet). The Town does not have a written adopted policy on comments submitted after noon but before the meeting.

I do not have further details or clarifications to provide about this matter at this time. 

Best,

TM

Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM

Town Administrator

Town of Estes Park

970-577-3705

On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 12:18 PM Christy A. Jacobs <c...@ap-tm.com> wrote:

Subject:  Clarification Requested: Post-Closure Reading of Written Comment in Quasi-Judicial Hearing (Resolution 103-25, Dec. 9, 2025)

Dear Town Administrator Machalek, Deputy Town Administrator Damweber, and Town Clerk,

Thank you again for your prior response regarding the Town’s current practice concerning public comment submitted after noon but before the evening’s meetings begin. I am providing additional factual context from the hearing record because it is directly relevant to quasi-judicial due process and the Town’s procedural handling of communications after hearing closure.

Summary of Hearing Sequence (Resolution 103-25 — December 9, 2025)

During the open public hearing, the Mayor:

• Allowed public comment; and then
• Asked whether the applicant had any additional commentary (no further response from applicant[s]); and then
• Asked Trustees whether there were questions or comments (none observed); and then
• Asked, on the record: whether any communications had been received regarding the application that were not in the Board packet.

At that point, the Deputy Town Clerk acknowledged:

• The Town Clerk had received an email shortly before the start of the Study Session; and
• The email was not placed at the dais and was not included in the packet prior to the Town Board meeting.
• Nor was read at the time of the open public hearing.

Following that acknowledgement:

• The Mayor formally closed the public hearing.

After the public hearing was closed—and immediately prior to the vote:

• The Board proceeded with a motion; and
• The Mayor asked again whether there were any further comments before the Trustees voted; and
• A Trustee requested that the email (previously acknowledged but not in the packet) be read aloud; and
• The sitting Town Attorney indicated it could be read; and
• The Deputy Town Clerk then read the email into the record.

 

Procedural Concern (Quasi-Judicial Due Process)

In a quasi-judicial setting, introducing substantive comment after the hearing is closed, particularly immediately before the vote, can create the appearance that evidence was considered without an opportunity for rebuttal or response.

Because this was a quasi-judicial hearing, the timing of when communications are introduced into the record matters. The email was acknowledged during the open hearing, but was read only after the Mayor closed the public hearing and before the vote:

• Without a motion or vote to reopen the public hearing/record; and
• Without providing an opportunity for response during the open hearing.

Importantly, there were multiple opportunities during the open public hearing including during the applicant commentary portion for the email (submitted by a co-applicant) to be read into the record prior to hearing closure. Instead, it was read only after the public hearing was formally closed, which eliminated the opportunity for response while the record remained open.

 

Request for Written Clarification

Accordingly, I respectfully request written clarification on the following points:

1. Consistency with quasi-judicial procedures: Does the Town consider the reading of that email after closure of the public hearing to be consistent with the Town’s quasi-judicial procedures and due process safeguards?
2. Use in deliberations: Did the Board consider the contents of that email as evidence in its deliberations on Resolution 103-25?
3. Record reopening: Does the Town consider the evidentiary record to have been reopened by reading the email after closure? If so, what procedural authority or practice governs that reopening?
4. Equal notice and opportunity to respond: What steps does the Town take to ensure equal notice and opportunity to respond when a communication is introduced after a quasi-judicial hearing has been formally closed.

My intent remains to understand the Town’s process and procedural compliance in quasi-judicial matters, particularly where communications are received but not included in the packet and are read only after hearing closure.

Thank you for your continued attention. I appreciate your response and any written policies or guidance you can provide.

 

Respectfully,

Christy Jacobs

---

From: Travis Machalek <tmac...@estes.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2025 3:13 PM
To: Christy A. Jacobs <c...@ap-tm.com>
Cc: jdam...@estes.org <jdam...@estes.org>; Town Clerk <town...@estes.org>
Subject: Re: Request for Administrative Clarification + CORA Public Records Request — Quasi-Judicial Hearing Record Closure Procedures

 

Good afternoon Christy,

The written public comment was submitted prior to the Town Board meeting. The Town's practice is to make every effort possible to include public comment submitted before the first meeting of the evening begins (Study Session) available at the dais to the Board and include the comments in the final packet. The Town does not have a written adopted policy on comments submitted after noon but before the meeting.  Additionally, the Town receives public comment in a number of formats including the website form, by email, and in writing. 

The Town Clerk's office has established an Open Records Request form which can be found on the Town's website for the management and completion of all CORA requests.  Please complete the form, and once received staff will route your request appropriately.  Any request estimated at $50 or more would require payment prior to staff completing the request. 

Best,

TM

Travis Machalek, ICMA-CM

Town Administrator

Town of Estes Park

970-577-3705

On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 1:33 PM Christy A. Jacobs <c...@ap-tm.com> wrote:

December 24, 2025

 

To: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator

Cc: Jason Damweber, Deputy Town Administrator; and Town Clerk

 

Subject: Request for Administrative Clarification + CORA Public Records Request — Quasi-Judicial Hearing Record Closure Procedures (Resolution 103-25, Dec. 9, 2025)

 

Dear Town Administrator Machalek, Deputy Town Administrator Damweber, and Town Clerk,

 I am writing to request administrative clarification regarding process and procedural compliance surrounding the Board’s handling of public comment in the quasi-judicial hearing on Resolution 103-25 held on December 9, 2025.

I previously requested clarification from Town Attorney Dan Kramer regarding the acceptance of written public comment submitted after the Town’s published deadline and after the Mayor formally closed the public hearing. Mr. Kramer advised that his role does not include providing legal opinions to members of the public and stated only that he was “not aware of any law preventing the Board from receiving the communication as they did.”

    (Note:  I have also attached a .pdf document of the Email thread correspondence between Mr. Dan Kramer and myself for your reference.)

Given that response, I am now requesting clarification from Town Administration regarding the Town’s internal process and procedures in quasi-judicial matters — specifically, how staff and the Board are expected to manage post-hearing submissions once the public hearing has been closed and the evidentiary record is presumed closed.

The Town’s public comment submission page states:

“Public comment must be received by noon the day of the Town Board meeting. All comments will be compiled for Board distribution prior to the meeting.”

As citizens are at the top of the organizational chart, transparency in process and consistent procedural application strengthens public trust and ensures fair access for all.

 BACKGROUND

The Town’s published procedures state that written public comments must be submitted by 12:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting. Despite this, a written comment received at 3:39 p.m. was read aloud and included in the final packet after the public hearing on Resolution 103-25 had already been closed by the Mayor and without a Board motion or vote to reopen the public hearing/record.

 

REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CLARIFICATION (NON-LEGAL)

I respectfully request written clarification on the following procedural questions:

1. Process: What is the Town’s standard procedure for handling written communications received after the public hearing has been closed in a quasi-judicial matter?

2. Policy enforcement: Who (staff, clerk, attorney, presiding officer, etc.) is responsible for ensuring that submissions received after the deadline and/or after public hearing closure are handled consistently with Town procedure?

3. Record status: Was the late-submitted communication treated as evidence/part of the official record for the Board’s deliberations? If so, what procedural step authorized that?

4. Reopening procedure: If staff receives substantive communications after closure, what is the procedure to determine whether the record should be reopened to allow equal notice and opportunity for response by all parties?

5. Written procedures: Please provide (or point me to) the Town’s written policy, administrative procedure, or staff guidance that governs the acceptance and inclusion of late public comment in quasi-judicial proceedings.

 

To be clear, I am not requesting a legal opinion, nor am I asking anyone to advocate for any party. I am simply requesting a clear explanation of the Town’s administrative process and compliance with its own published procedures, particularly where due process considerations apply.

 

CORA PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

Additionally, pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), C.R.S. § 24-72-201 et seq., I request the following public records in electronic format for the period December 9–13, 2025, relating to Resolution 103-25 and/or the quasi-judicial hearing held on December 9, 2025:

 

Records Requested:

1. The written public comment submitted at approximately 3:39 p.m. on December 9, 2025, including its original timestamp and any attachments.

2. Any transmittal (email, message, or cover memo) used to circulate that comment to staff, Board members, or to include it in the packet.

3. The portion of the meeting packet (or packet revision) showing that comment included, and any packet version history showing when it was added, including file metadata if available.

4. All internal communications (email/text/Teams/Slack) between Town staff and/or officials concerning whether that late-submitted comment should be included in the packet, read aloud after public hearing closure, or treated as part of the quasi-judicial record without reopening the public hearing/record. This item is limited to communications referencing the late comment, record closure, packet inclusion, reopening the public hearing/record, or due process/fairness concerns.

5. Any written policy, staff guidance, or standard operating procedure in effect on December 9, 2025 addressing written public comment deadlines, acceptance/inclusion of late submissions in packets, and handling of communications received after a quasi-judicial public hearing is formally closed.

 

WITHHOLDING LOG / INDEX (IF ANYTHING IS WITHHELD)

If any responsive record (or portion of a record) is withheld or redacted, please provide a withholding log identifying, at minimum: the date of the record, the type of record (email, text, memo, etc.), author/sender and recipient(s), a brief description of the record’s general subject matter, and the specific CORA exemption relied upon for withholding or redaction.

 

RECORDS PRESERVATION

Please treat this correspondence as a request that all potentially responsive records be preserved while this CORA request is pending and until it is fully resolved, including emails, texts, Teams/Slack messages, drafts, notes, packet version history/metadata, and communications on personal devices or personal accounts used for Town business.

 

DELIVERY / COSTS

Please provide responsive records electronically via email or a download link. If costs are expected to exceed $25, please provide an estimate before proceeding.

 

Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate your written response and any documentation you can provide.

 

Respectfully,

Christy Jacobs

c...@ap-tm.com

1655 Twin Dr. – Estes Park

The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing accessible information and services. If you need any accommodations to view or interact with this email, please reply with your request or contact me at the phone number listed above.

The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing accessible information and services. If you need any accommodations to view or interact with this email, please reply with your request or contact me at the phone number listed above.