PALMER LAKE, Colo. (KOAA) — The potential of a Buc-ee's in Colorado could be left up to voters, depending on the outcome of an election on Tuesday and what the Board of Trustees decides in the near future.
The Palmer Lake Board of Trustees is scheduled to take up the topic of Buc-ee's in their Oct. 2 meeting. However, there is the possibility that a couple of new trustees could be in place ahead of that meeting, and if the Buc-ee's is approved, the annexation may still have to go before voters, depending on the outcome of Tuesday's election. On the ballot is a question asking if annexation should require voter approval, a question on whether or not two trustees should be recalled, and three candidates to fill the open vacancies if one or both trustees are recalled.
RECALL QUESTION 1: KEVIN DREHER
Shall Kevin Dreher be recalled from the office of Trustee of the Town of Palmer Lake? Yes or No.
Statement from Recall Committee: Kevin Dreher failed to provide fair, balanced, and well-informed leadership. Examples include but are not limited to: On December 12th , unlawfully and recklessly approved annexation eligibility despite overwhelming public opposition. Participated in executive session collusion, including an unrecorded vote in October 2024 for the UCC disconnection. The November 2024 vote on annexation impact reports for Buc-ee’s. Failed to properly review the annexation application and approved a plan that illegally annexed private property. Dismissed the public before voting, violating transparency and accountability principles. Deferred to the annexation applicant instead of conducting independent research or seeking legal counsel. Violated CRS 24-6-401, et. seq., Colorado Open Meetings Laws by: limiting public participation. Restricting access to adequate meeting space. Disregarding the will of the people. Allowed the town manager to enter into contracts exceeding $25,000, drafted by the annexation applicant, creating a conflict of interest. Approved these contracts in the November 14, 2024 Board of Trustee meeting, misleading the public. Displayed bias and abuse of power by retaliating against a local business (Jarrito Loco) for opposing Buc-ee’s. For these reasons, Kevin Dreher should be immediately recalled.
Response Statement from Trustee Dreher: I have been a faithful volunteer on the Board of Trustees since 2023. I truly care about our town, both today and in the future. I always try to do what is right and within the law. I have enjoyed serving and am asking the voters to let me finish my term. As a Colorado Native I have watched the growth of the Front Range all my life. I am concerned about what is happening to our state and our town. I look at the expansive development that is going on around us and ask myself, “What is best for Palmer Lake?” My family moved here in 2003, and our hope is to live here for the rest of our lives. We enjoy the nature, the community, the outdoor activities, and the lifestyle. Our three daughters have all gone through the D38 schools. I have in the past and currently participate in volunteer activities that support both our students in D38 and the community. While I am NOT a politician, I decided in 2022 that it was time to get involved. I wanted to give back to the community. My goal was to leave Palmer Lake a better place for the next generation. To improve our infrastructure and our services, to address the drainage concerns, to improve our marketability, and to make it all sustainable. Regarding the recall, it is about a difference of opinion regarding the potential Bucees, and the process involved. Regarding annexation eligibility, the only votes to date are procedural and don’t guarantee Bucees is coming. They are required by law. There has been no collusion on the Board’s part. There were no votes in executive sessions. The Colorado Municipal League determined that NO Colorado Open Meeting Laws were violated. Thank you for your consideration.
Recall Question 2: SHANA BALL
Shall Shana Ball be recalled from the office of Trustee of the Town of Palmer Lake? Yes or No
Statement from Recall Committee: Shana Ball failed to provide fair, balanced, and well-informed leadership. Examples include but are not limited to: On December 12th , unlawfully and recklessly approved annexation eligibility despite overwhelming public opposition. Participated in executive session collusion, including an unrecorded vote in October 2024 for the UCC disconnection. The November 2024 vote on annexation impact reports for Buc-ee’s. Failed to properly review the annexation application and approved a plan that illegally annexed private property. Dismissed the public before voting, violating transparency and accountability principles. Deferred to the annexation applicant instead of conducting independent research or seeking legal counsel. Violated CRS 24-6-401, et. seq., Colorado Open Meetings Laws by: limiting public participation. Failing to provide adequate meeting space. Ignoring widespread community concerns. Refused to relocate the meeting to accommodate the large number of concerned residents. Approved contracts exceeding $25,000, drafted by the annexation applicant, creating a conflict of interest. Concealed the nature of these contracts and misrepresented them during the November 14, 2024 Board of Trustee meeting. Allowed legal counsel to be funded by the annexation applicant, raising ethical concerns. For these reasons, Shana Ball should be immediately recalled.
Response Statement from Trustee Ball: The recall effort against Trustee Shana Ball isn’t based on misconduct or legal violations—it stems from disagreement over a single policy vote related to annexation eligibility. Let’s be clear: differing opinions on legislative decisions are not grounds for removal from office. As a Trustee, Shana Ball participated in a legislative hearing governed by Colorado law, where elected officials consider broader policy impacts and community feedback. The December 12, 2024 hearing lasted over five hours, included extensive public comment and written testimony, and was properly noticed, recorded, and open to all. Trustee Ball fulfilled her legislative duty by casting an informed vote after thoughtful deliberation. Some have argued that she should have taken a different stance or spoken publicly beforehand. But responsible leadership means respecting process—not engaging in political grandstanding. Her conduct was consistent with expectations for legislative decision-making, where public input is balanced with long-term planning and statutory obligations. Allegations of misconduct have not just been unsubstantiated—they’ve failed in court multiple times. The lawsuit has been repeatedly amended and still hasn’t produced a viable claim, despite a judge’s order to submit a final version within 2 weeks. The Court denied 2 attempts to force the board to move their second annexation hearing to another location based on the same content stated in the lawsuit and the recall petitions. This is a clear indication the El Paso County Court does not agree with these claims and the lawsuit against the town will be dismissed. This recall isn’t about transparency or accountability. It’s a political maneuver that threatens the integrity of our democratic processes by targeting a Trustee for doing her job. Trustee Ball has demonstrated professionalism, integrity, and respect for the law. She deserves our confidence—not a recall.
Vote for not more than two candidates to serve as Trustee if current official is recalled:
-Roger Moseley
-John Marble
-Elizabeth Harris
Shall the proposed ordinance be enacted by the Palmer Lake Board of Trustees? Yes or No.
Section 1. Requirement for Voter Approval of Annexation Any proposal to annex land into the Town of Palmer Lake shall be subject to approval by a majority vote of the registered electors of the Town of Palmer Lake at a regular or special municipal election. No annexation shall be deemed effective unless and until it has been approved by the voters in accordance with this ordinance.
Section 2. Compliance with State Law All annexation proposals shall comply with the requirements of the Colorado Revised Statutes, including but not limited to CRS 31-12-101 et. seq., and any other applicable municipal and state laws.
Section 3. Effective Date This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval by the electors (if required), and publication as provided by law.
Section 4. Applicability to Prior Annexations Any annexation approved by the Town Board of Trustees within one year prior to the effective date of this ordinance but not yet finalized (including those pending legal challenge or awaiting infrastructure development) shall be subject to voter approval as described in Section 1.
The difference between Space Force and Space Command
Do you know the difference between Space Command and Space Force?
____
Watch KOAA News5 on your time, anytime with our free streaming app available for your Roku, FireTV, AppleTV and Android TV. Just search KOAA News5, download and start watching.
