HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV220 - STACY LYNNE V. NOAH BEALS, SENIOR PLANNER, AND JEREMY CALL - 026 - PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEFAPR 2 9 2019
rfll,.EGI`+c .
DISTRICT COURT
Latimer County, Colorado
201 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
PLAINTIFF: Stacy Lynne
V.
DEFENDANTS:
Noah Beals, Senior Planner, City of Fort Collins:
in his individual and official capacity
Jeremy Call, Senior Associate — Logan Simpson
Design, Contractor for the City of Fort Collins:
in his individual and official capacity
Stacy Lynne
305 West Magnolia Street #282
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
970-402-1582
stacy_lynne@comcast.net
U
COURT USE ONLY
Case Number:
18CV220
Division:
3C
Courtroom:
Jouard
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST -TRIAL RELIEF PER COLORADO RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE (C.R.C.P) 59
Plaintiff Stacy Lynne timely files this motion for post -trial relief in accordance with
C.R.C.P. 6 (a)(1)(2)(b) and C.R.C.P. 59.'
' Wilson v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 931 P.2d 523 (Colo. App. 1996). "The provisions of C.R.C.P. 6(e) authorize the
addition of three days to the prescribed period for taking certain actions following service by mail. However, the
time for filing a rule 59 motion is specifically triggered either by entry of judgment in the presence of the parties or
by mailing of notice of the court's entry of judgment if all parties were not present when judgment was entered.
As a result, C.R.C.P. 6(e) is not applicable to the filing of rule 59 motions."
Specifically: Judge Stephen Jouard signed the ORDER on Wednesday, April 3, 2019.
The postmark on the order that was mailed to Plaintiff is Saturday, April 6, 2019 (Exhibit 1).
"In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules the day of the act... shall
not be included.... The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a
Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday." (C.R.C.P. 6(a)(1)). And so, the required 14-day filing
deadline is satisfied.
LEGAL FOUNDATION FOR C.R.C.P. 59
Plaintiff Stacy Lynne intends to exhaust all available legal remedies at the District Court
level. This motion for reconsideration is the first step toward that exhaustion.
"Its obvious purpose is to direct the attention of the trial court with at least some degree
of specificity to that which the losing litigant asserts to be error, all to the end that the trial court
will be afforded a last look, and an intelligent last look, at the controversy before it. General
allegations of error do not comply. Martin v. Opdyke Agency, Inc., 156 Colo. 316, 398 P.2d 971
(1965); Hamilton v. Gravinsky, 28 Colo. App. 408, 474 P.2d 185 (1970).
The District Court's Order dated April 3, 2019, is not harmless error. The "court at every
stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not
affect the substantial rights of the parties." z "A substantial right is one which relates to the
subject matter and not to a matter of procedure and form." Sowder v. Inhelder, 119 Colo. 196,
201 P.2d 533 (1948); Cabin by Corbin v. City & County of Denver, 735 P.2d 214 (Colo. App.
1987). The court's protection of substantial rights is vital to justice. "A motion to dismiss is
looked upon with disfavor, and a complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond a
z C.R.C.P. 61
doubt that a plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to
relief." Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Van Wyk, 27 P. 3d 377 (Colo. Supreme Court 2001),
in Kobobel v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, 2011.
PURPOSE OF THIS RULE 59 MOTION
Plaintiff correctly pled that Defendant waived governmental immunity because he
willfully, wantonly, and repeatedly brought widespread shame and humiliation to Plaintiff.
Defendant knew when he made numerous false statements about the Plaintiff that Defendant's
lies would cause people to doubt Plaintiff's trustworthiness and to question her character.
Defendant knew when he lied about Plaintiff to her community and professional associations and
business groups that her reputation would be scarred. Intentional defamation is malicious.
Plaintiff defined actual malice and her pleadings contain specific examples of actual malice.
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS OF ERROR IN THIS COURT'S ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT NOAH BEALS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND REQUEST FOR
ATTORNEY FEES
1. The Court writes: "The Court finds that there is no factual dispute, only a dispute as to
whether Plaintiff sufficiently pled facts to establish subject matter jurisdiction." The
Court quotes Tidwell and Lyons: the Court "may hold hearing on fact if existence of
subject matter jurisdiction may turn on that fact". If the Court would have held an
evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff could provide the facts that would have proven this Court
has subject matter j urisdiction. See Exhibits 2-13. Plaintiff originally asked for the
evidentiary hearing to assist the Court in making decisions based on more complete
information because Plaintiff understands that she does not have all the knowledge of an
attorney. To be clear, Plaintiff is not asking for special consideration because of that
deficit. She is asking the Court to utilize the full spectrum of the law to allow forjustice
to be served: conduct an evidentiary hearing so that Plaintiff can establish subject matter
jurisdiction.
2. The Court writes: "Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege specific facts to support a
conclusion that Beals' actions were willful and wanton" but that "Beals made the
allegedly defamatory statements `to cover up his own mistakes'.
For example: If a woman would lie about this Court... if she told numerous
attorneys that this Court made inappropriate sexual contact with a clerk
downstairs... and she said told those lies in order to gain favor with the clerks
downstairs... then Plaintiff's actions would be willful and wanton.
Noah Beals willfully and wantonly lied about Stacy Lynne to gain favor with the people
he had betrayed. He knew he was lying. He lied anyway. He did it to cover up his own
mistakes. In no way did Noah Beals accidently or inadvertently make defamatory
statements about Stacy Lynne. Beals lied to make himself look better at Lynne's
expense.
3. The Court writes: "Plaintiff fails to allege in her Complaint that Defendant Beals
statements were made with actual malice." On page 6 of Plaintiff's Complaint, she
defines actual malice as it applies to defamation. Plaintiff's entire Complaint— the
totality of the 27 pages — demonstrates that Noah Beals knew that the statements he was
making about Stacy Lynne were false. He admitted it in writing. His superiors conceded
the same. Elected officials and the City Manager admitted it. All of those admissions
and concessions are verifiable and indisputable via audio recordings and written
statements. There was no "reckless disregard" by Beals — he knew he was lying and he
chose to do it over and over and over again to so many people. And Beals did it to
discredit and humiliate Stacy Lynne. See Exhibits 2-13.
Continuing with the example above: If the woman knew that her lies were lies
when she told them, she would be acting with actual malice.
EXHIBITS EXPLAINED
Exhibit 2: Plaintiff finds that pattern jury instructions are a reliable way to test the merits of a
case. The Colorado Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, Chapter 22 Defamation (Libel and Slander)
are wildly instructive in this case. Plaintiff does not file legal actions without solid facts and
evidence that are supported by the law.
Exhibit 3: Text message from Jeremy Call to Noah Beals. This is where the "misinformation
campaign" appears to originate and is then repeated in communications to the Chamber of
Commerce, the Downtown Development Authority, and the Downtown Business Association,
and to private business owners. Also on this text: Jeremy Call proposes selecting a "favorable
reporter" to counter the "misinformation campaign".
Exhibit 4: Text message from Jeremy Call to Noah Beals continuing to explore ways to counter
the "misinformation campaign".
Exhibit 5: Noah Beals emails Ann Hutchison, Executive Vice President, and Kevin Jones of the
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce about misinformation. Email from Ann Hutchison to Noah
about anyone making contact with business owners and "good information".
Exhibit 6: Email from Jason Dennison, Executive Director of Downtown Fort Collins, to Noah
Beals about an investigative reporter and misinformation.
Exhibit 7: Email from Coloradoan reporter Nick Coltrain to Noah Beals. Mr. Coltrain is the
"favorable reporter" that Jeremy Call texted Noah Beals about to use counter the
"misinformation campaign'.
Exhibit 8: Email from Jason Dennison to Noah Beals regarding the "spread of
misinformation".
Exhibit 9: Email from Jason Dennison to Noah Beals with attached flyer.
Exhibit 10: Email from local business owner Jim Hewitt (The Cupboard) to Noah Beals.
Exhibits 11, 12, and 13: Email thread the shows Noah Beals and his supervisor Laurie Kadrich
intentionally withheld information from Plaintiff regarding the dates, times and locations of
public meetings. Business owners contacted Plaintiff after those meetings because Noah Beals
lied about information that Plaintiff had provided to the business owners.
BOTTOM LINE INJUSTICE
Noah Beals' lies have not been corrected and because of that, Stacy Lynne's reputation
among her community and professional associations continues to be damaged. Plaintiff cannot
secure employment under circumstances where her credibility as an investigative journalist is at
issue. The devastation is deep and wide, not because Stacy Lynne did anything wrong, but
because Noah Beals decided to hurt her so that he could hide his own problems. He was worse
than reckless. He was intentional. He waived his immunity and he acted with malice.
And what is Plaintiff supposed to do with this part ... other officers of the court said that
Plaintiff did plead actual malice and that she did establish subject matter jurisdiction. How is it
even possible that different judicial officers can come to different conclusions when the law is
supposed to be applied with little room for personal belief or opinion? (As in, we are a nation of
laws and not of men.) And, if Plaintiff failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction and failed to
plead actual malice, then why were Plaintiff and the Co -Defendant in this case able to reach an
amicable decision? Why didn't the Co -Defendant simply wait for this Court to dismiss his case
as well?
As Noah Beals and the woman in the Court's example demonstrate so
explicitly... defamation is not so much about the lies (although lies are often the conduit) as it is
about the damage that is done to your reputation and character. Try to move forward in your
profession when the clerks in this building believe that this Court is sexually inappropriate.
Maybe the people who were told those lies just whisper about you. Or, maybe they hold public
meetings and lie to hundreds of people in your community. Either way, through whispers or
blatantly at public forums, how will your career be impacted?
Plaintiff cannot move forward in her career as an investigative journalist until her name is
cleared. Plaintiff lives in Old Town. She shops in Old Town. Her work is largely conducted in
Old Town. The past 14 months have been extremely uncomfortable for Plaintiff because of
Noah Beals intentional and malicious lies.
And so, Plaintiff Stacy Lynne requests that the Court:
A. Reconsider and reverse the ORDER Granting Noah Beals' Motion to Dismiss and
Request for Attorney Fees.
B. Conduct an evidentiary hearing to establish subject matter jurisdiction and actual
malice if Exhibits 2-13 have not satisfied those requirements.3
3 Seder v. City of Fort Collins, 1999. Under CRCP 12(b)(1), the trial court is the fact finder and may hold an
evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual dispute upon which thee existence of the court's subject matter
jurisdiction under the GIA may turn. In, Foggy v. Mocaluso, 892 P. 2d 271, Colo. Supreme Court, 1995.
ATTACHMENTS 1-13
Respectfully filed on Monday, April 22, 2019.
lt.h p
Stacy Lynn
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on Monday, April 22, 2019, a true and accurate copy of the foregoing
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST -TRIAL RELIEF PER COLORADO RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE (C.R.C.P) 59 with 13 EXHIBITS was filed with the clerk and served
via USPS to:
Kimberly Schutt
Wick & Trautwein, LLC
PO Box 2166
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
rLh1
Stacy Ly e
E7� r
r'l i-7 C3
73
EXHIBIT 2
COLORADO PATTERN CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CHAPTER 22 DEFAMATION (LIBEL AND SLANDER)
22.1 LIBEL OR SLANDER PER SE — WHERE THE PLAINTIFF IS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC PERSON OR, IF A
PRIVATE PERSON, THE STATEMENT PERTAINED TO A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST OR G ENERAL CONCERN
—ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY 1. The defendant (published) (or) (caused to be published) the above
statement(s) in the same or substantially similar words; and 2. The statement(s) caused the plaintiff actual
damage. You must further find that the following elements have been proved by clear and convincing
evidence: 3. The substance or gist of the (statement was) (statements were) false at the time (it was) (they
were) published; and 4. At the time of publication, the defendant knew that the (statement was) (statements
were) false or the defendant made the statement(s) with reckless disregard as to whether (it was) (they
were) false.
22.2 LIBEL OR SLANDER PER SE — WHERE THE PLAINTIFF IS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC PERSON OR, IF A
PRIVATE PERSON, THE STATEMENT PERTAINED TO A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST OR GENERAL CONCERN —
ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY 1. The defendant (published) (or) (caused to be published) the above statements)
in the same or substantially similar words; and 2. The statement(s) caused the plaintiff actual damage. You
must further find that the following elements have been proved by clear and convincing evidence: 3. The
substance or gist of the (statement was) (statements were) false at the time (it was) (they were) published;
and 4. At the time of publication, the defendant knew that the (statement was) (statements were) false or
the defendant made the statement(s) with reckless disregard as to whether (it was) (they were) false.
22:3 RECKLESS DISREGARD DEFINED — WHERE THE PLAINTIFF 15 A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC PERSON OR,
IF A PRIVATE PERSON, THE STATEMENT PERTAINED TO A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST OR GENERAL
CONCERN (A statement is) (Statements are) published with reckless disregard when, at the time of
publication, the person publishing (it) (them) believes that the (statement is) (statements are) probably false
or has serious doubts as to (its) (their) truth.
22:7 PUBLISHED — DEFINED A statement is "published" when it is communicated (orally) (in writing) to and is
understood by some person other than the plaintiff.
22:8 DEFAMATORY — DEFINED A statement is defamatory of a person if it tends to harm the person's
reputation by lowering the person in the estimation of at least a substantial and respectable minority of the
community.
22:9 ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF — DEFINED A defamatory communication is made about the plaintiff if (the) (one
or more) (reader[s]) (viewer[s)) (listener[s)) (recipient[s]) correctly understands, or mistakenly but reasonably
understands, that it was intended to refer to the plaintiff.
22:10 DETERMINATION OF MEANING OF STATEMENT — HOW UNDERSTOOD BY OTHERS In determining the
meaning of a statement and whether the statement defamed the plaintiff, you must consider what the
statement meant to the person(s) who (read) (heard) it. You must give the statement its plain and usual
meaning. You must make this decision without regard to how the defendant intended the statement to be
understood.
22:11 DETERMINATION OF MEANING OF STATEMENT —PUBLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE In
determining the meaning of a statement and whether the statement defamed the plaintiff, you must
consider the (statement) (publication) (article) (broadcast) (communication) as a whole. You must not dwell
upon specific parts of the (statement) (publication) (article) (broadcast) (communication). You must give each
part its proper weight and give the entire (statement) (publication) (article) (broadcast) (communication) the
meaning that people of average intelligence and understanding would give it.
22:12 DETERMINATION OF MEANING OF STATEMENT —PUBLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES In determining the meaning of a statement and whether the statement
defamed the plaintiff, you must consider the (statement) (publication) (article) (broadcast) (communication)
in light of the surrounding circumstances. The circumstances that may affect the manner in which words are
understood include (the section of the newspaper or other publication in which they appear) (the type of
program or production in which they occur) (the nature of the discussion in which they occur) (insert other
description of surrounding circumstances established by the evidence) and the likely expectations of readers,
listeners, or viewers of the statement(s) as a result of those circumstances.
22:13 FALSE — DEFINED A statement is false if its substance or gist is contrary to the true facts, and
reasonable people (hearing) (reading) (or) (learning of) the statement would be likely to think significantly
less favorably about the person referred to than they would if they knew the true facts. The fact that a
statement may have contained some false information does not necessarily make the substance or gist of the
statement itself false.
22:15 ACTUAL DAMAGE — DEFINED "Actual damage' includes any (impairment of the plaintiff's reputation)
(personal humiliation) (mental anguish and suffering) (physical suffering) (injury to the plaintiff's credit
standing) (loss of income) (insert any other elements of compensable actual damage of which there is
sufficient evidence).
22:16 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — SUBSTANTIAL TRUTH The defendant, (name), is not legally responsible to the
plaintiff, (name), on (his) (her) claim of (libel) (slander), if the affirmative defense of substantial truth is
proved. This defense is proved if you find the statement(s) published by the defendant (was) (were)
substantially true. A statement is substantially true if its substance or gist is true. Substantial truth does not
require every word to be true.
22:19 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — PRIVILEGE TO REPORT OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC MEETING PROCEEDINGS The
defendant, (name), is not legally responsible to the plaintiff, (name), on (his) (her) claim of (libel) (slander), if
the affirmative defense of a privilege to report (an official action) (or) (a(n official) (public) proceeding) is
proved. This defense is proved if you find both of the following: 1. The defendant was reporting (insert an
appropriate description of the official action or proceeding, or meeting open to the public and dealing with a
matter of public concern which defendant claims and which under the law would give rise to the privilege);
and 2. The report was substantially accurate and complete as to the matter being reported or it was a fair
summary of the matter.
22:24 REPETITION BY THIRD PERSONS AS AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES In awarding the plaintiff, (name),
damages, if any, you must take into account not only the damages to the plaintiff which occurred as a result
of the defendant's, (name), original publication of the defamatory statement(s), but also any damages which
may have occurred as a result of any repetition of the defamatory statement(s) by third persons. However,
you must also find that such repetition was the natural consequence of the defendant's original publication,
or that the defendant expressly or impliedly authorized its repetition.
22:25 DAMAGES — RECOVERY OF Plaintiff, (name), has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the
evidence, the nature and extent of (his) (her) damages. If you find in favor of the plaintiff, you must
determine the total dollar amount of plaintiff's damages, if any, that were caused by the publication of the
statement(s) by the defendant(s), (namefs]), (and the [insert appropriate description, e.g., "negligence"I, if
any, of any designated nonparties). In determining these damages, you shall consider the following: 1. Any
noneconomic losses or injuries plaintiff has had to the present time or which plaintiff will probably have in
the future, including: damage to the plaintiff's reputation, physical and mental pain and suffering,
inconvenience, emotional stress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, impairment of quality of life, and
(insert any other recoverable noneconomic losses for which there is sufficient evidence). 2. Any economic
losses plaintiff has had to the present time or will probably have in the future, including: loss of earnings or
income; ability to earn money in the future; (reasonable and necessary) medical, hospital and other
expenses, loss of or injury to (his) (tier) credit standing, and [insert any other recoverable economic losses for
which there is sufficient evidence]. (If you find in favor of the plaintiff, but do not find any actual damages,
you shall award (him] [her) nominal damages of one dollar.)
22:27 EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES Use Instruction 5:4. 1. "Actual malice," as defined in N.Y. Times
Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S. Ct. 710, 721, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964), and its progeny, means "with
knowledge that [a defamatory statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
As so defined, "actual malice" is a "term of art, created to provide a convenient shorthand for the standard of
liability that must be established before a State may constitutionally permit public officials to recover for libel
in actions brought against publishers. As such, it is quite different from the common-law standard of 'malice'
generally required under state tort law to support an award of punitive damages." Cantrell v. Forest City
Publ'g Co., 419 U.S. 245, 251-252, 95 S. Ct. 465, 42 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1974).
COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT (CGIA)
Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) Title 24, Article 10
NOTICE. OF CLAIM
C.R.S. 24-10-109
Name and Address of Public Employees `1 Thou9h�-s On
281 North aft N Beals, Senior City Planner (Defendant)
2R1 r ► It Si n-Foy nik-hoyl
Fort Collins. Colorado 80524 '1 darn p4�gh ��
Icrcmy Call, Logan Simpson Design Inc. (Defendant)
Contract limployce for the City of Fort Collins
213 linden Street
Suns 300 =]
Port Collins. Colorado 80524 �
Attorney Representing the Public Entity
;,^^ "
....
City Attorney C'arric Daggett
... :.........,,,
City Hall West
....:..n.:,,:ri,.,
300 LaPortc Avenue
Dort Collins, Colorado 80521 —�'
...... .:....:....:: i..inP.r r:upl
,.(�T
Governing Rudy, 4-ie
Mayor Wade Troxell
Mayer Pro Tern Cicrry I Iorak
I.pnu-: e.•
„,.::Yii,.
Nal}Iiin, IU:�KCI vlill, UU11C.,10,
.,II•cr wl,/i•.,nepat�a9nnnn.
City Councilor Ray Martinis �
City Councilor Ken SU1nn1CrS
City Councilor Boh Overbeck
„ncooe wl.us eel v,civo ni
nnriCal,., w0alb;tic 1po4in91C
pin my NW
City Councilor Ross Cunniff
City Councilor Kristin Stephens
Noticeol'Claim Pa_e I 01'22 Iuly24,2018
&4 t� 16-1 t 4
Name and Address of Claimant (Plaintiff)
Stacy Lynne
Investigative Journalist
Mailing Address:
30> West Maenolia Street Q82
I ort Collins. Colorado 80521
970-402-1582
stacy_ lynnc@comcast.ncl
I�? xj- -�'ro me vernr�
'T n(,a.1-,at�S
Z)UA prese n.K-h„»
t Zn. Pe-rs Oki -P,
del �v�- anc) ems.
< 4.w
,,, Innll��u.p I.I�IQUN'IIV1, ]I: �1•+q�A:
l)r4,hl:", mth
m
c�a w n-{rvwn huS i r� 55 owl-r's �'
This written NO-rICE OF CLAIM entirely satisfies the notice required under CGIA (C.K.S. 24-
10- 109( 1 )(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)):
I) ...within 182 days after the date of discovery of the injury... The first known date of
injury occurred on February 15. 2018, 160 days prior to this NOTICE.
2) The name and address of the claimant, a concise statement of the factual basis ol'thc
claim, the name and address ofany public employee involved, a concise statement of the
nature and extent of' the injury suffered, and a statement ul'the amount of monetary
damages are included.
3) Service via civil process service of the NO licit to the Governing body, the attorney
representing the public entity, and to the known del'endants was completed on July 24,
2018.
4) Not applicable.
5) The NOTICE is filed within the one-year statute of limitations I'or the primary tort at
issue.
6) The COMPLAIN'r will be tiled on day 91 [October 23, 20181 or sooner if the public
entity denies the claim.
Notice ofClaim Pa2c 2 ol'22 July 24. 2018
Ann
(Ann Hutchison, CAE
Executive Vice President
ahutchison(@fcchamber.org
From: Noah Beals jmailto:nbeals@fceov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 5:36 PM
To: Ann Hutchison <ahutchison@fcchamber.org>; Kevin Jones <kiones@fcchamber.org>
Cc: Jeremy Call (1Call@LOGANSIMPSON.COM) <1Call@LOGANSIMPS0N.00M>
Subject: Phase 2 Sign Code Update
Hello Kevin and Ann,
During the public meetings we spoke with Kevin about getting back in front of the LLAC with Phase 2 of Sign Code
Update. We hear your meetings are getting full in March, but wanted to see if there is some time end of March or
beginning of April for us to come back.
Here is a link to the webpage with updates of the process httas://www.fcgov,com/planning/sign-code-update.oho. We
will continue to keep this up to date.
There is someone not with the cii v contacting_ business owners. We want to be sure any info you get is correct, so
please reach out if have any questions.
Kind Regards,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner -Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416.2313
970 224-6134 Fax
7From: Ann Hutchison <ahutchison@fcchamber.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 5:19 PM
To: Noah Beals; Kevin Jones
Cc: Jeremy Call (1Call@LOGANSIMPSON.COM)
Subject: RE: Phase 2 Sign Code Update
Excellent. We'll see you March 9 at 7:30am at the Chamber!
Ann Hutchison, CAE
Executive Vice President
ahutchisggCd fcchamber.oro
From: Noah Beals [mailto:nbeals@fcgov.cornj
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:46 PM
To: Ann Hutchison <ahutchison@fcchamber.org>; Kevin Jones <kjones@fcchamber.org>
Cc: Jeremy Call (1Call@LOGANSIMPSON.COM) <JCaII@LOGANSIMPSON.COM>
Subject: RE: Phase 2 Sign Code Update
Ann,
eNvarch 9" should work for us.
Thanks,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner -Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Ann Hutchison [mailtoahutchison fcchamber.ore[
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:32 AM
To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcKov.com>; Kevin Jones <kones@fcchamber org>
Cc: Jeremy Call (1Call@LOGANSIMPSON.COM) <1CalIPLOGANSI MPSON.COM>
Subject: RE: Phase 2 Sign Code Update
Thanks for reaching out Noah. We would like to get you on the calendar. I've got an opening on March 9 at
7:30am. Could that work for you?
We did have people attend both of the open houses, but haven't completely digested the information yet— so
connecting would be great.
I'll let you know if I hear about anyone making contact with business. We, too, want to make sure good information is
eing shared.
Let me know about the 9`1.
Ev-1I ,
From: Jason Dennison Imailto:jason(6,dnr:nt;>a:•dur!cu;1�n_.co«�
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 IA9 PM
^'"^a To: Noah Seals <nueah(A_;;iw.coru>
Subject: Sign Code Changes
Hey, Noah.
I hope your week is off to a great start. This afternoon, I have received several emails from downtown business owners
asking for more information about changes to the sign code. I believe an investigative reporter is going around stating
the changes to the sign code will force, downtown business owners to change their sign awnings, w n urn wi
cost them significantly.
Could you or another City staff rep attend our upcoming Board meeting, scheduled for Wed. Feb. 14th 8:30am loam to
provide clarification? It would he a great opeorwnity to stop the sDread of misinformation and/or misperceptions
about the impact the sign code changes will have on small business owners. Please let me know.
Thank you,
Jason Dennison
Executive Director'
DOWNTOWN
FORT CORS
u
i�From: Coltrain, Nicholas <nickcoltrain@coloradoan.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 7:17 PM
To: Noah Beals
Subject: Interview about sign update?
Hello Mr. Beals,
My name is Nick Coltrain and I'm a reporter with the Coloradoan. I'm working on a story about the sign code update and
where the city is with it. Would you have time to chat on the phone sometime early next week?
Thanks in advance,
Nick Coltrain
Reponer
Coloradoano
PART OF THE USA TODAY NETWORK
Mobile: 775.412.3533
Office: 970.224.7740
Twitter I Facebook
NickColtrain@coloradpa n,cum
Jump the,paywall_a nd_suppon.,our work.; $',0 fur a yeara_subscriplipn
From: Jason Dennison [mallto:Jason@downtownfortcollins.com[
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:49 PM
To: Noah Seals <nbeals@fceov.com>
toill Subject: Sign Code Changes
Hey, Noah.
I hope your week is off to a great start. This afternoon, I have received several emails from downtown business owners
asking for more information about changes to the sign code. I believe an investigative reporter is going around stating
the changes to the sign code will force downtown business owners to change their signs/awnings, which in turn will
cost them significantly.
Could you or another City staff rep attend our upcoming Board meeting, scheduled for Wed. Feb. 14th 8:30am-10arn to
provide clarification? It would be a great opportunity to stop the spread of misinformation and/or misperceptions
about the impact the sign cosign co a ill have on small owners. Please let me now. �
Thank you,
ilk
Jason Dennison
Executive Director
DR
'JJ J`J
�"1
rz.v,14►L,i� <I
From:
Jason Dennison <jason@downtownfortcollins.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, February 13, 2018 11:21 AM
To:
Noah Beals
Cc:
Jeremy Call (JCall@LOGANSIMPSON.COM)
Subject:
Re: Sign Code Changes
Attachments:
sign code update.pdf
Hey, Noah.
Thank you for making time to provide clarity on the sign code conversation.
Our Board meeting starts at 8:30am; we will have an informal discussion with Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager from
8:35am-9:OSam and will add you to the agenda right after that. Our meeting takes place at Innosphere, 320 E. Vine.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information.
Also, attached is a flyer that is being distributed to downtown business owners.
Thanks again!
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:48 AM, Noah Seals <nbeals(dfcgov.com> wrote:
Hello Jason,
Yes, we would be happy to attend your meeting tomorrow.
Should I arrive right at 8:30? Where is the meeting held?
Thanks,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner -Zoning
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
01411 Dear Downtown Business Owners, February 9, 2018
The City of Fort Collins is in the process of updating the sign code for these reasons:
1. The City's sign code has been in violation of the United States Supreme Court ruling in Reed v.
Town of Gilbert. The Reed ruling means that the City of Fort Collins can no longer use sign code
rules to discriminate against people or businesses based on religious, political or commercial
grounds. It's a First Amendment ruling that restricts government interference with individual
rights.
2. The City is changing the sign code so that business owners comply with the City's aesthetic
values.
At the public meetings for sign code updates on February 1 and February 7, 2018, the City used photos
of numerous downtown business signs to illustrate "aesthetic concerns". I noticed there were no
downtown business owners at the public meetings where other people were voting on what kind of
signs they feel is right for your business. If I was a downtown business owner, I would want to know.
That is why I am contacting you.
Sign code update information is being posted on a public community page here:
www.Facebook.com/FocusFortColfins/ If you would like to meet in person for a summary of the sign
code update (individually or as a group of business owners) in addition to viewing the information on
the Facebook page, I am happy to schedule a time that is convenient for you.
Stacy Lynne, Investigative Journalist
970-402.1582
stacy_lynne@comcast.net
From: Jim Hewitt [mailto:jim_ @thecu.pboard,net]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 3:41 PM
To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
ONubject: Downtown sign code update
Noah,
I recently heard about public meetings regarding a Downtown sign code update. I own a business downtown, and I first
heard about the meetings after they had already been held. I don't know of any other business owners who knew about
the public meetings. The business community should have been represented, as we are the ones who are most affected
by this possible code change. I would appreciate if someone from the city could take time to educate and listen to
downtown stakeholders. A DBA member meeting would be an opportunity to address the business community. Please
let me know your thoughts, as well as ways to find out more information on this subject.
Best Regards,
Jim Hewitt
The Cupboard
970.493.8585
W
970 224-3 Ex
970 224-6136134 Fax l
(From: STACY [mailto:stacv lynne(cDcomcast net)
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 3:43 PM
To: Dawn Kennedy <dkennedY@fc2ov.com>; Stacy lynne@comcast.net
Cc: Laurie Kadrich <lkadrich(nlfcgov.com>
Subject: Re: Letter from L Kadrich
Hello Dawn,
Tuesday, March 6 from 10:30-11:00 works for me.
At our first meeting, Laurie said she would provide a list of all the meetings that are scheduled related to the sig]cotde
update. Please include in the list all presentations that are scheduled with the DDA, DBA, Chamber of CommercCouncil, Boards and Commissions, Planning/Development/Transponation and all other meetings that involve th
code update.
Thank you,
Stacy Lynne
Investigative Journalist
Sent from XFINITY Connect Mobile App
----Original Message -----
From: dkennedy@fcgov.com
To: Stacy Lynne@comcast.net
Cc: Ikadrich2fcgov.com
Sent: 2018-03-01 2:50:51 PM
Subject: Letter from L Kadrich
Hi Stacy,
Please see attached letter from Laurie Kadrich. I am holding Tuesday, March 6" from 10:30-11:00 am for a meeting at
our office if you would still like to follow-up with Laurie. Please confirm if you would still like that.
Thank you,
.......... I....
Dawn Kennedy
Executive Administrative Assistant
C Ir of Furl Calnns
970.221-6601 office
dkennetl fcoov.com\
J
Guh,L', � IZ
From:
Noah Beals
Sent:
Friday, March 2, 2018 4:37 PM
To:
Dawn Kennedy; Laurie Kadrich
Subject:
RE: Letter from L Kadrich
Laurie.
The following is the current scheduled public meetings, these are on the website.
We do have LILAC scheduled March 91' and DBA member meeting March 151" . We do not have these posted as
they are not public meetings. Should we give these two meetings to Stacy?
Upcoming Events
Coffee Chat, no appointment needed:
March 7, 10:00am-12:00pm. Mugs Underground Coffee Lounge, 261 S. College Ave.
March 7. 1:OOpm-5:OOpm. Lobby of 281 N. College Ave.
March 22, 8:00-5:OOpm. Lobby of 281 N. College Ave.
Upcoming Meetings
Planning and Zoning Board
March 9th. 2018 12:OOpm
Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue
Overview of the Phase 2 Sign Code Update
Landmark Preservation Commission
March 14. 2018 5:30pm
City Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue
Overview of the Phase 2 Sign Code Update
Council Work Session
March 27, 2018
Check in with City Council to review Phase 2 Sign Code Update potential changes
e)
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner -Zoning
City of Fort Collins
t
MFrom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dawn Kennedy
Monday, March 5, 2018 1:28 PM
Noah Beals
Laurie's email
Noah, Laurie said not to add the DBA and LLAC. Is highlighting
below what 1 should send Stacy?
Upcoming Events
Coffee Chat, no appointment needed:
March 7. 10:OOam-12:OOpm. Mugs Underground Coffee Lounge, 261 S. College Ave.
March 7, 1:OOpm-5:OOpm. Lobby of 281 N. College Ave.
March 22. 8:00.5:OOpm. Lobby of 281 N. College Ave.
Upcoming Meetings
Planning and Zoning Board
March 9th, 2018 12:OOpm
Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue
Overview of the Phase 2 Sign Code Update
Landmark Preservation Commission
March 14. 2018 5:30pm
City Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue
Overview of the Phase 2 Sign Code Update
Council Work Session
March 27, 2018
Check in with City Council to review Phase 2 Sign Code Update potential changes
n
...............
Dawn Kennedy