On Sept. 2, the Pagosa Springs Town Council considered an ordinance that would establish standards for the issuance and enforcement of special events permits.
The proposed ordinance attracted a crowd, with audience members critical of the current federal administration expressing that they were concerned that the ordinance would stifle First Amendment rights to assembly and free speech.
Members of the council also expressed concerns, citing vague language in the ordinance and how it defines a special event, also worrying that it may end up violating the constitutional rights to assembly and speech.
Ultimately, the council did not make a decision on the matter, deciding to go back to the drawing board to rewrite the ordinance so that it addresses these concerns.
Assistant Chief of Police Brooks Brown was on hand to present the ordinance to the council, explaining, “Currently, we do not have a standardized event permitting process.”
Brown suggested that a permitting “process should be required” and that it would benefit the town “for a variety of regulatory, liability, legal and safety reasons.”
He added, “It would establish a single point of contact for applicants to provide the guidelines and application process, and ensure that all the requirements are met and proper staffing is available within the town and other departments.”
It would help the town to “have coordination with different services, such as trash collection … park staff, the police department … and then we’d also be able to let EMS, fire, sheriff’s office … know as well as part of the permitting process,” he said, adding that it would also “help minimize disruption” for businesses and residents.
He explained that a coordinated process would allow “EMS and fire to stage on either side of town, and that way if there was an incident, they’d be able to respond effectively.”
The special event permit would help “define who is responsible if something goes wrong and there’s injuries or property damage,” he said.
One worry, expressed by audience members during public comment, had to do with the ordinance’s requirement that event organizers would need to carry insurance, with the concern being that it would place a monetary burden on people expressing their right to free speech.
When opened to questions, council member Madeline Bergon asked, “So, we currently don’t require event organizers to have insurance?”
Brown replied, “I’m not aware of any requirement,” adding that event organizers in the past have chosen to get insurance on their own, but it was not required.
Council member Gary Williams asked what the town’s Parks and Recreation Department thought about the ordinance.
Parks and Recreation Department Director Darren Lewis replied that the town’s current special event permit “actually” does require insurance, “but what it does not do is activate” notifications to the fire district, police, EMS and the sheriff’s department.
“There’s nothing that really brings all that together,” Lewis said, describing the current permitting process as “very basic.”
“That’s what this new event permitting process is gonna help,” he said, adding that the Parks and Recreation Department is rolling out new software that will “hopefully” make the application procedure “a very easy process.”
“You know, you check this box and it automatically sends information to the police department, to fire, to EMS. It notifies them that there’s an event and then everything comes back to the event coordinator for final approval,” he added.
Williams asked why an ordinance even needed to be passed since the new software would be alerting all the proper agencies that an event is happening and the current permit already requires insurance.
“Maybe we solved the problem without passing this ordinance,” he said.
Lewis replied that “having an ordinance in place” would protect the town “in case anyone comes back on us … and says, ‘Well, I didn’t know that I was supposed to notify this.’”
He added, “We are hoping that this new system works correctly, but if by chance it does not, we will then have to manually do some of these things.”
He suggested that the ordinance would ensure that “all of our T’s are crossed and our I’s are dotted.”
Williams then expressed that he had concerns about the ordinance’s possible violation of “First Amendment rights.”
He asked if a small group of “protestors” would need to “get a million dollar liability insurance policy and notify us 30 days in advance for six people to stand on a corner and protest?”
Lewis replied, “You know, that’s a great question. Personally, I would say no, but I believe, in regards to this,” that the police chief “needs to know when things are going on in our town and he needs to know if there’s gonna be a gathering of a certain amount of people.”
He added, “All of these events that I’ve seen are very peaceful. I mean, there’s been no problems and I’ve certainly had no problems with them, and I have no complaints about it.”
He further stated, “Our attorney has looked this over and it’s been approved by him.”
Williams stated that he was for “streamlining things” and not putting more “unnecessary burden on the public,” suggesting that the town should “get rid of some requirements that are kind of unnecessary and clog up the machinery of government.”
He said, “I feel like this ordinance is an ordinance in search of a problem, instead of trying to solve a problem. ... I felt an instinctive resistance to it when I first read it.”
He took issue with the First Amendment aspects of the ordinance, “and the right to protest, and the idea” that a small group of protestors would “be required to have a million dollar liability policy and apply 30 days in advance before they showed up on the street corner.”
Mayor Shari Pierce clarified that the ordinance would only apply to crowds of 25 or more people, but Williams stated that his concerns were still applicable.
Many of the speakers during public comment expressed that most of the local protests are spontaneous reactions to current events and sometimes there’s a few people and other times hundreds show up, so the permitting process would place an unfair burden on organizing efforts.
Pierce said that “the piece” of the ordinance that “I like is the piece about notifying all the proper agencies that an event is happening for safety in our community.”
Williams added that the new software system would do that without an ordinance.
Council Member Matt DeGuise shared Williams’ concerns, adding that “there’s a fundamental difference between a special event, like a parade or concert, and public protesting and peaceful assembly, and it’s not defined in this to my satisfaction.”
Pierce suggested that council members DeGuise and Williams “sit down with staff to revise” the ordinance “to address their concerns and then bring it back to us.”
Williams replied that he’s not in favor of the ordinance “at all, so the idea of massaging the words is not an approach that I’m interested in.”
When Pierce asked DeGuise if he’d be interested in sitting down with staff to “redo the words,” he answered, “Potentially.”
“It wouldn’t be so much about ‘massaging’ the words, it would need to be about specifically protecting peoples’ First Amendment rights,” he added.
Williams then chimed back in to say that he would “do it” after hearing DeGuise’s suggestion to specifically word the ordinance to protect freedom of speech and assembly.
Pierce then said that the council would “move this off [of the agenda]. We’re not gonna vote on this tonight. We’re gonna massage it and bring it back, addressing some of your concerns, and then we’ll listen to public concerns as well.”
derek@pagosasun.com
>