PALMER LAKE • Proposals to allow adult retail marijuana and a mill levy override are heading to the November ballot.

After months of discussion, community meetings and public input, Palmer Lake will have ballot questions for the coming Nov. 8 election for voters to decide if the municipality is going to allow both adult-use cannabis sales and implement a mill levy override. The final ballot language was approved Sept. 8.

Ordinances to put both questions on the ballot for the November election started to come to a head at the Palmer Lake Board of Trustees meeting Aug. 11. Although options to generate more revenue for the town to prevent it from falling into receivership have been explored by the municipality and members of the community since February, the deadline for getting the decision in the hands of voters was approaching quickly.

Discussion to consider an ordinance to allow marijuana sales without going to the voters had been discussed but eventually tabled at previous meetings. At the Aug. 11 meeting, the board voted to table it and consider a resolution on the ballot initiative.

Town Attorney Matthew Krob explained the language drafted and what was reviewed initially by bond counsel at the time, as well as other options to consider, such as adopting an ordinance after a public referendum or providing ordinance language for the public to consider when voting.

Former Palmer Lake mayor John Cressman suggested the board put the question to the voters with a simple “yes” or “no” on the ballot. Former trustee Paul Banta agreed, saying it is a voter issue.

A mill levy increase on the upcoming ballot also was considered in the Aug. 11 meeting, where Krob again reviewed the preliminary ballot language and members discussed options to execute the override in staggered increases over the coming years. It was also discussed whether a not-to-exceed amount would be better. Input from those in attendance favored the not-to-exceed option.

Resident Jim Parco recommended the board consider a mill levy increase question that includes language for establishing a not-toexceed amount, in case the marijuana question fails. Many in attendance said they felt rushed to determine the language.

On Aug. 15, the Board of Trustees had a special meeting specifically to further determine the mill levy override language. Trustee Glant Havenar brought up the consideration of the Gallagher Amendment of 1982 and its effect on the mill levy increase question being

finalized. It was later determined by Krob that the amendment had been repealed in 2022 and was no longer a factor.

After further discussion, Krob said the updated language would be drafted for the board to review at its next regular meeting.

At the board’s Aug. 25 meeting, and with the timeline for getting ballot measures certified nearing, both measures were considered again, with Trustee Karen Stuth noting language for the marijuana question limiting sales to two stores in their present locations was still missing.

Krob felt the language insinuated retail marijuana stores are already open in the town. It was later added as a condition before the resolution was put to a motion.

“I just think if we are actually going to put this on the ballot, people need to understand what they’re voting for,” Havenar said.

The resolution passed with Trustee Jess Farr being the only vote against.

Moving onto the override question, Mayor Bill Bass read the question aloud, which asked: Should the mill levy override increase by not more than $1.37 million, an additional 30 mills, in tax collection for the 2023 year if the marijuana measure fails?

It also stated if the marijuana measure passes, the collection would not exceed an additional 15 mills.

Concern over the wording being confusing and causing voters to skip over it and not vote at all was discussed. However, it was determined that the description of the measure in the Blue Book voter guide would be essential to clarifying the measure.

Some attendees compared the not-toexceed a certain amount of mill levy override language to writing a blank check .

“We don’t need to talk about this anymore in the language,” Parco said. “What we need is for us as a community to educate our fellow community members on the options they’re facing. Yes, you’re being forced to make a choice and the choice you’re making is not about raising taxes or voting-in cannabis. The choice we’re making is saving our town. Do we want to go to receivership or not? And these are the options.”

The board passed the resolution and reviewed minor changes to the language during its Sept. 8 meeting after bond counsel had another chance to look at the revisions.