HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110965.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
APRIL 18, 2011
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, met in regular session in full
conformity with the laws of the State of Colorado at the regular place of meeting in the Weld County
Centennial Center, Greeley, Colorado, April 18, 2011, at the hour of 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chair and on roll call the following members
were present, constituting a quorum of the members thereof:
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair
Commissioner Sean P. Conway, Pro-Tem
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher
Also present:
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Director of Finance and Administration, Monica Mika
MINUTES: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of April 13, 2011, as printed. Commissioner Long seconded the motion, and it
carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: Doug Meyer, County resident, read an article into the record titled, "Coordinating
Agency Status, Does Not Exist?!", marked Exhibit A. He also mentioned for nearly 20 years
Fred Kelly-Grant served with the American Stewards of Liberty as a legal counselor and also served as
President for the past two years. He stated Mr. Kelly-Grant retired on April 4, 2011, and will now be
working with his family on Trademark America, which is a non-profit organization dedicated to Tenth
Amendment and Constitutional issues. Mr. Meyer expressed his appreciation to Mr. Kelly-Grant for his
past contributions and wisdom, and explained they have assembled a team of attorneys to fill the
vacancy.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Long seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR BAGS OF LOVE PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - IT'S MY VERY OWN, INC.: Judy Griego, Director of Department of
Human Services, stated this is a continuation of a non financial agreement for the "Bags of Love"
project to provide age appropriate toys and handmade items to children who have been removed from
their homes. She stated the Department will identify the level of need to the representatives of It's My
Very Own, Inc., and the term of the Memorandum of Understanding is from January 1, 2011, through
Minutes, April 18, 2011 2011-0965
Fj- �'J"� t Page 1 BC0016
December 2011. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Griego stated this is a long standing
arrangement; they distribute bags from the Frederick center almost weekly for ages infant to
adolescent. Commissioner Rademacher commented more than 600 bags were provided last year.
Commissioner Conway stated he attended one of the distributions last month and was impressed with
the incredible amount of volunteers who helped provide a necessary service. On behalf of It's My Very
Own, Inc., Ms. Griego thanked the Board for use of the Frederick facility. Commissioner Conway
moved to approve said Memorandum of Understanding and authorize the Chair to sign. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, and it carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - ORR ENERGY, LLC:
Christopher Woodruff, Assessor, explained this petition is concerning 13 oil and gas wells and the
petitioner filed the original production numbers for 2009, but did not take allowable deductions against
their income. He stated staff has reviewed the data and agrees with the abatement, in the amount of
$41,691.31. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said petition and authorize the Chair to
sign. The motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Garcia, carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - STARTEK, INC. (R6777530):
Mr. Woodruff stated this and the following item are both for Startek sites, and each deals with tax years
2008, 2009, and 2010. He stated for the year 2008, staff did not receive any additional data supporting
an adjustment, therefore, he recommended denial. In response to Chair Garcia, Mr. Woodruff
explained they used the lower value range due to the minimal amount of office partitioning present in
the building compared to the comparable sales. No public testimony was offered concerning this
matter. Commissioner Conway moved to amend the Resolution to split the matter into two separate
items for the two properties and to include all three tax years to correct a clerical drafting error. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and the motion carried unanimously. Commissioner
Garcia moved to approve the amended Resolution to deny the petitions, as recommended by staff.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, and it carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - STARTEK, INC. (R7083798):
Mr. Woodruff stated staff reviewed the comparables; however, staff maintains the value is accurate and
he recommended denial of the petition. No public testimony was offered concerning this matter. Based
on the previous discussion to amend the Resolution to recognize two separate properties for tax years
2008, 2009, and 2010, Commissioner Rademacher moved to deny said petitions, as recommended by
staff. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AGREEMENT FOR UPPER FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REGION
COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS EQUIPMENT (FUELING STATION #2) AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO
SIGN: Elizabeth Relford, Department of Public Works, stated this is the third of three contracts for
equipment sites which will be completed and managed individually. She explained the second fueling
station will be funded with 2011 CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality) funds through the Upper
Front Range, and this project will also use most of the supplemental environment program funds
received through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Commissioner
Rademacher moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Conway, and it carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 22 BETWEEN CR 31 AND U.S. HIGHWAY 85: Janet
Carter, Department of Public Works, requested approval for the temporary closure of County Road 22,
between County Road 31 and U.S. Highway 85, from April 25, through April 29, 2011, to replace
a 48-inch culvert. She stated message boards and standard road signs and barricades will be used for
traffic control, and the average daily traffic count for County Road 22, taken in 2006, was
approximately 427 vehicles. Mr. Carter noted there was a recent closure along this segment for
multiple culvert replacements; however, when staff conducted the initial inspection, the ditch was full of
Minutes, April 18, 2011 2011-0965
Page 2 BC0016
water and the rust damage at the subject location was not visibly apparent. Commissioner Conway
moved to approve said temporary closure. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 84 BETWEEN CRS 35 AND 37: Ms. Carter requested
approval for a temporary closure of County Road 84, between County Roads 35 and 37, from April 21,
through April 29, 2011, to replace a 15-inch culvert with an 18-inch culvert. She stated the average
daily traffic count on County Road 84, taken in 2008, was approximately 106 vehicles. She further
stated water will be applied on the detour route for dust control, and standard road signs and barricades
will be used for traffic control. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said temporary closure.
Commissioner Conway seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 61 BETWEEN CR 50 AND U.S. HIGHWAY 34:
Ms. Carter requested approval for temporary closure of County Road 61, between County Road 50 and
U.S. Highway 34, commencing April 25, through April 29, 2011, for a deck replacement on
Bridge 61/50A. She stated the average daily traffic count on County Road 61, taken in 2008, was
approximately 75 vehicles. She further stated water trucks will be used for dust control on the detour
route, and standard signs and barricades will be placed for traffic control. Commissioner Rademacher
moved to approve said temporary closure. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 70 BETWEEN CRS 33 AND 35: Ms. Carter requested
approval for the temporary closure of County Road 70, between County Roads 33 and 35, starting
April 25, through April 29, 2011, to replace a 30-inch culvert. She stated the average daily traffic count
for County Road 70, taken in 2006, was approximately 112 vehicles. She further stated water trucks
will be used for dust control on the detour route, and standard road signs and barricades will be used
for traffic control. A motion was made by Commissioner Conway, and seconded by Commissioner
Rademacher, to approve the installation of traffic control devices as previously described. There being
no discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ON CR 36 AT CR 31: Ms. Carter
requested approval for the installation of Stop signs on County Road 36, at the intersection with County
Road 31, to help address some sight distance issues. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve
said installation request. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion. In response to Chair
Kirkmeyer, Ms. Carter confirmed there have been no accidents; however, this is a proactive request for
the safety of the traveling public. Responding further to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Carter stated although
County Road 36 has a slightly lower traffic count, it is actually impacted more by the sight distance
restrictions, and the new signs will have red flags attached to gain public awareness of the change. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Carter stated there has been an increase in oil and gas truck
traffic throughout the area, as well as some new residences, with the potential for additional growth.
There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ON CR 4 AT CR 17: Ms. Carter
requested approval to install Stop signs on County Road 4, at the intersection with County Road 17,
due to sight distance restrictions caused by existing landscaping which is out of the public right-of-way
and not subject to removal by staff. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Carter stated in
previous discussions the Board indicated it did not want to dictate vegetation on private property. She
further stated this is an uncontrolled intersection, the problem is generally seasonal based on the
presence of vegetation, and there has been one accident which occurred in 2009. Commissioner
Rademacher moved to approve said installation request. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion.
Commissioner Rademacher explained three years ago it was estimated that Weld County had
approximately 600 uncontrolled intersections, many of which exist(ed) in the Pawnee National
Minutes, April 18, 2011 2011-0965
Page 3 BC0016
Grassland; however, staff was instructed to proactively seek out and improve any sight limited
intersections. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ON CR 29 AT CR 40: Ms. Carter
requested approval to install Stop signs on County Road 29, at the intersection with County Road 40.
She stated this intersection is near the Town of Gilcrest, and she explained Weld County will install the
sign and Gilcrest will maintain the sign and right-of-way to the north, with Weld County maintaining the
sign and right-of-way to the south. She stated this project was initiated at the request of the local Fire
Protection District due to the close proximity with U.S. Highway 85. Ms. Carter stated there are no
accident reports for the intersection; however, due to the growth in the area, it will be beneficial to have
a controlled intersection for consistency in the area. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said
installation request. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
CONSIDER INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ON 4TH AND 5TH STREETS AT
CR 126: Ms. Carter requested approval for the installation of Stop signs within the Town of Carr. She
explained, in the past, the Board has directed staff to initiate traffic controls at intersections which are
transitioning to a major surface change, such as paving. She stated 4th and 5th Streets are gravel
roads intersecting with County Road 126, which is paved. In response to Commissioner Conway,
Ms. Carter stated she is not aware of the Greeley Tribune article; however, Commissioner Long
indicated this is not in the same area mentioned in the article. Commissioner Rademacher commented
this is just west of the recently approved energy park and the area will be experiencing an increase in
traffic. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said installation request. Commissioner Garcia
seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
CONSIDER INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ON CR 13 BETWEEN CR 68.5 AND
TIMNATH CITY LIMITS: Ms. Carter stated this is a multijurisdictional collaboration with the Towns of
Timnath and Windsor, to correct a series of inconsistent speed limit changes. She stated staff
conducted a study and found the 85th percentile is traveling at 45 miles per hour, and Timnath is also
conducting its own study. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Carter stated due to the
numerous complaints concerning the unrealistic speed limit of 25 miles per hour, the Town of Timnath
did raise the limit to 40 miles per hour and they are considering an additional increase to match the
speed of 45 miles per hour, as supported by Weld County and the Town of Windsor. Commissioner
Conway moved to approve said installation request. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Rademacher, and it carried unanimously. Commissioner Conway commended staff for being proactive
in each of the previously discussed instances, specifically those areas currently being impacted by the
oil and gas industry.
(Clerk's Note: Due to the anticipated length of the Planning item, Chair Kirkmeyer moved Health New
Business forward to be considered first.)
NEW HEALTH BUSINESS:
CONSIDER ISSUING CEASE AND DESIST ORDER FOR RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE - NICK ST. GEORGE: Dan Joseph, Department of Public Health
and Environment, stated since the last hearing staff conducted an inspection and found the three
required sinks, which will be plumbed in later today, as well as the remaining minor changes required
by staff. He stated the food service will be limited to pre-chopped items and deli sandwiches, and once
the sinks are properly installed, Mr. St. George will be allowed to resume full catering services. He
further stated the $100.00 application fee and $255.00 license fee have been paid, the remaining fees
will be collected next Monday following the final inspection, and the license will be issued if the sinks
are properly installed. Mr. Joseph recommended a 90-day continuance of the matter to ensure the
work is completed, and he also asked for clarification on whether the civil penalty is waived, or if it is
still being assessed to Mr. St. George, since his violation is separate from the license his mother is
Minutes, April 18, 2011 2011-0965
Page 4 BC0016
currently applying for. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Joseph stated the remaining fee
consists of the $45.00 per hour fee for staff review of the plans, for an estimated total of$135.00.
Nick St. George, operator, commented his only concern is the tight timing to complete the plumbing
work due to the Easter holiday; however, he is in agreement with the remaining issues and
requirements.
In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Joseph clarified staff is requesting a continuance on the licensing
portion to ensure all of the required work is completed and the civil penalties are paid. Commissioner
Conway stated his understanding of the Board's previous action was to dismiss the suspension matter
and bring it back for Board determination on whether all of the requirements had been satisfied. In
response to Chair Kirkmeyer, the Board indicated they do not want to hear the matter in three months
concerning the new license application for Ms. St. George, unless brought forward by staff if she does
not obtain the license. Commissioner Garcia moved to affirm the Board's previous motion to dismiss
the suspension and waive the civil penalty and to dismiss the request for a Cease and Desist Order.
Commissioner Conway seconded the motion. Mr. Joseph stated the fees were assessed as a penalty
for not having a license, versus being assessed against a license. There being no further discussion,
the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER REAFFIRMATION OF DETERMINATION TO DISMISS CONSIDERATION OF
REVOCATION OF COLORADO RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE - ROGGEN CENTRAL
FOOD AND GAS: Mr. Joseph stated he visited the facility on Friday, April 15, 2011, and found that the
operator had pulled all of the items that require a Retail Food Establishment License, and they had also
locked the bathroom doors to address the water quality concerns expressed by the State. For those
reasons, Mr. Joseph recommended dismissal of the matter, and stated staff intends to conduct two or
three site visits throughout the next year to ensure continued compliance. Commissioner Conway
moved to reaffirm the decision to dismiss made on April 13, 2011. Commissioner Rademacher
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The Board commended Mr. Joseph and staff for
serving the public with their quick response on this matter.
PLANNING:
CONSIDER RECORDED EXEMPTION #5079 - DOUGLAS AND LAURI SUTTON: Chris Gathman,
Department of Planning Services, stated staff approved Recorded Exemption (RE) #4058 in 2005, and
the applicant is now proposing to split Lot D of RE-4058 into three additional lots, for a total of
seven parcels. He stated three of the existing lots contain single family dwellings, one is vacant, and
there is a private access/utility easement which is privately maintained, with no formal agreement for
road maintenance. Mr. Gathman stated the applicant has not shown compliance with
Sections 24-8-40.A through O of the Weld County Code, specifically, Sections 24-8-40.J and 24-8-40.K
as detailed in the Administrative Review, which he read for the record. He reiterated staff believes the
number of lots sharing a common access is evidence of a non-urban scale development which should
be reviewed through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. He stated the RE process is an
exemption from the Subdivision process and does not address issues such as access maintenance and
drainage, nor is it subject to public notification requirements. Mr. Gathman referenced an aerial vicinity
map, described the layout of the proposed lots, and stated the applicants have indicated they do not
intend to build on the proposed Lot D, although it will be a separate legal lot and eligible for building.
Mr. Gathman displayed photographs of the sight, and in response to Chair Kirkmeyer, he stated Lot D
is 124 acres in size.
Heidi Hansen, Department of Public Works, stated if this had been processed as a PUD, staff would
have reviewed the site for drainage issues and required the access to be privately maintained as a
public right-of-way. She stated with this application staff tried to include certain conditions to stay
consistent with the PUD requirements, and the applicant is agreeable to the requirements concerning
Minutes, April 18, 2011 2011-0965
Page 5 BC0016
the access, school bus, mailbox, etcetera. Ms. Hansen stated the applicants will be required to enter
into an Improvements Agreement to ensure the safety improvements are completed, and there will be a
Homeowners' Association or maintenance agreement to ensure future residents are aware that Weld
County is not responsible for the internal road. She stated the western portion of Lot D is within the
floodplain; however, it does not impact the residential lots. She further stated the applicants have
requested a 50-foot access easement, versus 60 feet, which staff felt was acceptable since it is not a
public right-of-way, nor will it be accepted by the County for public maintenance.
In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman reiterated Lot D consists of 124 acres, and a referral was
sent to the Fire Protection District which indicated no concern with the width of the road or cul-de-sac.
Douglas Sutton, applicant, stated staff has done an adequate job of explaining the proposal and he is
available to answer questions. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Sutton stated he
completed the first RE request in 2005, and decided to pursue the same process since he was familiar
with the requirements. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman stated Lot D would be eligible for
another 4-lot RE since the site is service by public water. Mr. Sutton stated he is not planning on any
future divisions at this time; however, he does not want to eliminate that option. Responding further to
Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Sutton confirmed it was his intent to do further divisions when he completed the
original RE application. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Gathman confirmed there will
be a shared access, and Ms. Hansen clarified the western portion of Lot D is in the floodplain, standard
notes will be included on the plat, and the floodplain would definitely affect any future lot designations.
In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Sutton confirmed a portion of Lot D is in the floodplain
and it is also part of a center pivot irrigation system. Responding to Commissioner Conway,
Ms. Hansen confirmed Condition of Approval #3.E addresses the floodplain issues and possible
restrictions. Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Sutton stated he purchased the subject property in
2004, and Mr. Gathman provided a brief review of the previous Recorded Exemptions approved in the
immediate vicinity.
In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Hansen stated County Road 88 is paved, requiring 60 feet
of right-of-way, and the average daily traffic count, taken in August 2010, was approximately 181
vehicles. She further stated with the additional lots, staff is estimating nine vehicle trips per day, per lot;
however, a specific traffic study would have been conducted through the PUD process.
Commissioner Rademacher stated he is a strong proponent of private property rights; however, this
request will create four residential lots which should be reviewed through the PUD process.
Commissioner Long stated the subject site is located near the Town of Ault, he is familiar with the lay of
the land, and he indicated there is not much congestion in the area. He acknowledged the benefits of
the PUD process in reviewing transportation and drainage; however, in this instance he believes the RE
process is appropriate, and noted the floodplain will limit any future divisions of Lot D. He further stated
the applicants have agreed to the additional PUD requirements through this RE, and the Fire Protection
District and surrounding municipality did not express any concerns with their interests.
Commissioner Conway stated the current average daily traffic count is 181 vehicles, and this request
will add approximately 36 trips per day, the applicants have agreed to a lot of the standard PUD
requirements, and although the 50-foot easement is unusual, the Ault-Pierce Fire Protection District did
not object. He stated he appreciates the concern regarding the number of prior RE lots existing in the
area; however, the applicant is only responsible for the one application since 2004, and has testified he
does not intend to divide Lot D.
In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Hansen stated the applicant could potentially create thee more lots
with the remaining 60 acres of Lot D which are not impacted by the floodplain. Chair Kirkmeyer
Minutes, April 18, 2011 2011-0965
Page 6 BC0016
expressed opposition, stating the increase in lots could create future complications for the Fire
Protection District, the RE process does not provide for off-site improvements, this is an evasion of the
Weld County Code, and the neighbors were not provided notice of the proposal. Mr. Gathman
suggested the option of amending the application to reduce Lot D to 120 acres, which would then only
be eligible for one 2-lot RE, or one additional home. Commissioner Conway stated any future RE
request will have to come back before the Board. Chair Kirkmeyer reiterated the process will be further
complicated if the future request is made by a different property owner.
Chair Garcia stated he agrees with Commissioner Long's knowledge of the area. Commissioner
Conway stated he agrees with Chair Kirkmeyer's comments; however, he would also support the
suggestion from staff to reduce Lot D to 120 acres to restrict the number of future lots, although he
would like to take the applicant at his word indicating he has no plans for the creation of additional lots.
He agreed the RE process lacks notice to the surrounding property owners; however, the Fire
Protection District did not comment, the traffic count does not appear to be an issue, and it does not
appear there are any other issues that would have been addressed better through a PUD process in
this case.
Mr. Sutton stated the property is 1.5 miles east of the Town of Pierce, the area north of the ditch is
dried up and cannot be farmed, and he believes residential development is a good use for the land.
Responding to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Sutton stated a majority of the property located north of
County Road 80 is owned by the City of Thornton and no longer has water rights, and the remaining
properties are split between owned and rented farmland.
A motion was made by Commissioner Long, and seconded by Commissioner Garcia, to approve
Recorded Exemption #5079, for Douglas and Lauri Sutton. Commissioner Conway requested
discussion on the idea of resizing Lot D to 120 acres. Mr. Morrison stated the change would also
require agreement from the applicant. Ms. Hansen displayed a map showing the floodplain boundary,
marked Exhibit A, for the Board's review. Upon conferring with Ms. Sutton, Mr. Sutton indicated his
preference would be to retain Lot D as 124 acres and not restrict his options to the addition of only one
lot. Upon a call for the vote, the motion carried three to two, with Commissioner Rademacher and
Chair Kirkmeyer opposed.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. No Ordinances were approved.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
Minutes, April 18, 2011 2011-0965
Page 7 BC0016
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
,- WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: EP- ' (--)0-440 A i �L(,l -/r"'—��/J
T,_(rt
r/
bara Kirkmeye , Chair
Weld County Clerk to the`B i �
- r'
igSean P. 'on a , Pro-Tern r
BY: p'�
Deputy Clerk to the Boa L ----)
Wi': '. c
1,90 ED O 'ORM: C, J
David E. Long
(
my Attorney I ,,.-14 3 �r`�vn 4 c ��
Doug asAademac r
Minutes, April 18, 2011 2011-0965
Page 8 BC0016
o r Page 1 of 2
An.ting Agency Status" Does Not Exist?! -American Stewards
Protecting People and Property
HOME NEWS COORDINATION TRAINING MEMBERSHIP DONATE ABOUT US STORE
Register tree to view and sea reli all of our articles. Log In I RegisterFree
Search. .
�Tt>,„k you for your work.
"Coordinating Agency Status"Does Not Exist?! Other groups seem to talk about
NAFTA,but you get things
done. We have a ranch in TX
ft
that would probably be affected
Navigation to the webpage was canceled by the proposed corridor—
Cuordination Works E April 1;{,201i(Margaret Rytield-- Thank you."
In some cases where local governments have insisted the federal agencies coordinate their iii'. Marcie From California
plans and management activities as required by law,the agencies have initially rehused. '
What is revealing in these instances are the alyuments used to avoid complying with the
very clear mandate set forth by Congress. Via
One of the most recent arguments brought forward by the Bureau of Land Management
Donate
state director in New Mexico and the.Agencies Liaison to State and Local Governments in ,
Washington D.C..is case and point.They have both taken the position that there is no
-Coordinating Status"in federal law,and then instruct the local governments that the
appropriate way to work with thee agencies is through a"coxopenating agency status'relationship, FREE Download
sr
In the article-Nine Reasons for Avoiding Cooperating Agency Status,"we spell out the differences between coordination and for Subscribing
"cooperative agency status"and point out that to gain a seat at the table as a"cooperative agency."you must first have the
permission of the lead agency to participate. This means they dictate the terms of how you can advocate your position. (Read
NEWS .
the gm memo by the Chairman of the Council on Emimnmental Quality detailing the factors for allowing local governments .-•�
Rereis e the Mt Download of
to have'cooperating agency status.-)
"('aopenition vs.Coordination"
Coordination is mandated by Congress and does not require the permission of the agency;rather it simply requires when von Subscribe
compliance with the law. to our e-Newsletters.
Sign Up Today O
Why the Agencies Argument Fails
The agency is correct in that there is no-coordinating status'in federal law. The coordination requirement is a process where
Congress clearly defined the duties placed on the federal agencies to ensure the local position was taken into account during
their planning process and as they cam out their management activities.
Congress did not establish a'coordinating status?'They established a process for the agencies to work with local
governments and resolve pmhie nos. Importantly,they did not leave open what the agencies were to do to carry out this April su it 20,
pl ocesa.'they spelled out five specific requirements of coordination in eery clear terms as the minimum expected of the A pr l 20,WY
3,ttt'nl'7e'5•
'fhe legislative branch of our federal government did not need to create a special status for local governments;instead they May 4,21)11
recognized that local governments already had a special status.They are a duly created political subdivision of the state that Buffalo.WY
has the responsibility to protect the health,safety and welfare of their citizens. Because of the critical role local governments
have in the tunctioning of our free society,Congress went to great effort to ensure local governments would have a process to Schedulea
advocate what is best for their citizens,local economy.and unique way of life,where the agencies could not dismiss their nw :::a••Senior,
position.
Congress set forth the process of coordination AS a way to anal;e certain that the agencies would consider and take into account
the local governments position prior to the public,meaningfully invohw the local entity in the planning and management l'
tiy*
activities of the agency,and then placed the burden on the agency-to make its position consistent with the local government's ' •'''1';.:'."-•'''•'•r
.._1_1!__a_,....,./......«.7:.+nti.,., .,,n,Ln/moralsnatinct-acrenPv-ctntiIS(1-d0C... 4/14/2(
-"CoGidinating Agency Status" Does Not Exist?! - American Stewards Page 2 of 2
as long as that position is consistent with federal law. They spelled out this mandate in the federal statutes at"43 t SC 1712(c) -Coordination STOPS Transmission
l9)• Line Deep in the Heart of Texas
-Two Court Cases Decided for
So,when a local government notices a federal agency that it will be requiring it to coordinate its plans and management Coordination
activities,it is simply insisting that the agency follow the law. When an agency instead refuses to coordinate and suggests the -Three Reasons 10 1.16 NEPA
local governments participate as'cooperating,agencies"with permission,of course,it reveals the agencies disregard for the
-The Sarre of the game::Mitigation
local position. -Winkelman NRCD Invokes the Data
Quality Act
Local governments do not need an"agency status"to sit at the table. They already have ail the"status"they need,given to
-One State's solution to Coordination
them by the people when elected by the majority.
-Arizona Coordination legislation
Becomes"Model"Bill
-Coordinating Monument Management
Plans
AMERICAN
STEWARDS/
American Stewards of Liberty is the
only non profit organization that
trains local leaders how to use the
coordination process to protect
their land.economy and way of life.
This unique strateu is just one of
the things we do to help Americans
protect their private limpet-1y
tights.
Join or donate today.
Educating . Fighting . Training . Winning
Wer<ir,;;;,<.thu'ticans 00 issues 1. saiLy:Wesendexpert;directlyuntoconunt:uidesLehelplocal We train local We are winning
ailectinr property rights;tnti k' dent protect their way of life thr.an h.ear Ieecnl Outreach _uteri;ment,how to battles in
iiuliriduaiIikeitles through our Pr•omi,u. assert their r'immunities
pu thcatioas,.'iimdiny(:'faun,(and coordinate role ill nationwide rod one..
('.xn,LluirtaiJ Works. `atli,ltalit'We gather I.i ther our members to fight in the ba11s
the fekieral and state by-one we are
of Congress througlI our I.thi rty,Wafter.alerts and.us hen pl:utuhi;prueess restoring our nation
oere.<:;my,file legal actions in the courts to protect property through our(:1LI. from the growal up.
rights. Americo ruMINIM-WC
progi•ata.
American;&wards of Liberty.PO BOX tayo'lat iur.T.`(7is5..(512)s;G:;-_Gyy Fs:.:1512) asl:?amerir.•atistetcard.s.us
'Google Analytics Code`/
htt11C•//tananv ittmPrir"ancttPxxrarele - s 11 .fns, .
Hello