HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110756.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
MARCH 21, 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, March 21, 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:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Elizabeth Strong
Director of Finance and Administration, Monica Mika
MINUTES: Commissioner Long moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of March 16, 2011, as printed. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the Certification of
Hearings conducted on March 16, 2011, as follows: 1) Amendment to, and Restatement of,
Consolidated Service Plan - Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District Nos. 1 and 2; and 2) PZ #1158 —
Rawah Resources, LLC. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: Doug Meyer, Weld County resident, stated he attended a real estate meeting on
Saturday, and he submitted a page from a magazine into the record, marked Exhibit A, which indicates
predictions about when the housing market will return to peak levels for various areas of the country. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Meyer stated Exhibit A includes Larimer and Weld Counties,
and it indicates Weld County's housing market will not return to its peak level until approximately the
year 2015 or later.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
BIDS:
APPROVE BID #61100043, 2011 CEMENT - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Monica Mika,
Director of Finance and Administration, stated this bid was presented to the board on March 7, 2011,
1Minutes, March 21, 2011 2011-0756
[Al Page 1 BC0016
and the Department of Public Works recommends approval of the low bid from GCC of America. She
stated GCC of America is the low bid when figuring the overall cost, including the cost per ton
delivered. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the low bid from GCC of America, based on
staff's recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVE BID #61100044, 2011 DUST PALLIATIVE - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS:
Ms. Mika stated this bid was presented to the Board on March 7, 2011, and staff reviewed the bid and
recommends approval of the low bid from GMCO Corporation. She stated the second lowest bid is
from a local company; however, staff cannot justify awarding the bid to the local vendor, based on the
difference in cost between the bids. Commissioner Garcia stated there seems to be a difference of
eight (8) cents per gallon between the bids, and it is estimated that 600,000 gallons will be needed. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Mika stated the County has worked with both of these
companies over the years and the costs have always been similar; however, the recommendation is
based on the overall consumptive cost. Commissioner Garcia inquired as to whether there are
differences between the two (2) companies' product, timing, or service. Ms. Mika indicated staff has
been satisfied with both companies. She stated staff considered the Durablend option, which was
substantially higher in cost, and the option was discounted. In response to Commissioner
Rademacher, Ms. Mika confirmed the cost includes delivery. In response to Commissioner Conway,
Ms. Mika confirmed only Envirotech Services, Inc., chose to submit an alternative bid for the Durablend
product, and GMCO Corporation does not carry it; however, the Durablend option was not a necessary
component for the bid proposals.
Mel Everhart, Department of Public Works, clarified staff did not request the alternative bid proposal for
the Durablend product, and Durablend is proprietary to Envirotech Services, Inc.; therefore, the other
companies cannot include Durablend in their bid proposals. In response to Commissioner Conway,
Mr. Everhart stated the County has experimented some with the Durablend product and there may be a
longevity advantage to it; however, the County has not used the product long enough for him to
complete a cost analysis, which will be based on how long the product lasts. He stated he would like to
experiment more with the product this year. Further responding to Commissioner Conway,
Mr. Everhart stated the manufacturer claims the product will last as much as twice as long as other
products. He stated Durablend is a polymer; therefore, it is intended to remain on the road, unlike
magnesium-chloride, and the company claims each time the Durablend is applied, less is necessary,
which is where the cost savings would become apparent, yet staff will not be able to determine the cost
savings until after years of use. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Everhart stated the
Durablend was applied to a test section of roadway last year located southeast of the Vestas plant in
the City of Brighton, and staff will apply more this year. Further responding to Commissioner Conway,
Mr. Everhart stated staff will know more about whether the Durablend is a good product at the end of
this season; however, it will be several years until they know for sure. Commissioner Garcia moved to
approve the low bid from GMCO Corporation, at a cost of $0.516 per gallon, and he indicated he has
determined there is an approximately 13 percent difference in cost between the bids; therefore, the bid
from Envirotech Services, Inc., is more than 10 percent higher than the low bid. Seconded by
Commissioner Rademacher, the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVE BID #61100052, MOSQUITO SURVEILLANCE/CONTROL - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT (TO BE CON'T TO 3/28/2011): Ms. Mika stated this bid was presented
to the Board on March 7, 2011, and she indicated Trevor Jiricek, Department of Public Health and
Environment, has requested the approval of this bid be continued for one (1) week. She stated
Mr. Jiricek needs to investigate several issues and he will likely be scheduling a work session to
discuss those issues with the Board prior to the bid being approved. Commissioner Conway moved to
continue the matter to March 28, 2011, based on staff's recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner
Rademacher, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, March 21, 2011 2011-0756
Page 2 BC0016
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - MARKET SQUARE, LLC:
Christopher Woodruff, Assessor, stated this petition is for Tax Year 2008, and the property is a
shopping center. He stated for the year 2008, he must consider the appraisal date of June 30, 2006,
and he can examine data for up to five (5) years back if sufficient recent data is not available. He
stated this property sold twice within the past five (5) years; it was sold in the years 2002 and 2003.
Mr. Woodruff stated the property sold for $124.00 per square foot in the year 2002, and $138.00 per
square foot in the year 2003. He stated when considering the sale prices for this property, the
comparable sale prices, and the income for this property, he believes the value of $114.00 per square
foot is fair and accurate for the June 30, 2008, appraisal; therefore, he recommends denial of the
petition. Commissioner Garcia stated the petitioner submitted income data and he inquired as to why
the information was not used. Mr. Woodruff stated staff was not able to verify the information and it
requested the actual income and expense information, which has not been submitted by the petitioner.
No representatives of Market Square, LLC, were present. Commissioner Garcia moved to deny said
petition, based on staff's recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY ASSEMBLY OF MORE THAN 350 PEOPLE ON
VARIOUS DATES - LEAHY FAMILY FARM: Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated this application is
submitted to the Board each year, and it has been since sometime in the 1990's. He stated
approximately six (6) dates have been selected each year and the list of events for this year is
provided. He stated it is a condition of the Use by Special Review (USR) Permit that the Leahy Family
Farm applies for a temporary assembly permit each year.
Deputy Julie Mercer, Sheriff's Office, indicated there have not been any issues at these events in the
past.
David Leahy, applicant, indicated he is available to answer any questions the Board may have.
Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said application. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY ASSEMBLY OF MORE THAN 350 PEOPLE ON
APRIL 16 AND 17, 2011 - MARTIN GUTIERREZ: Mr. Barker stated this is an application to conduct
horse racing on April 16 and 17, 2011. He stated the Board has seen a number of these types of
requests through USR Permit requests, and the applicant can discuss why this was not approached in
that fashion; however, the applicant does have the right to request the temporary assembly. He stated
no notice was posted on the property, as is completed for USR Permit requests of the same nature;
however, a notification was placed in the paper, which satisfies the Code requirement for notification.
In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Barker stated the Leahy Family Farm applied for a USR Permit
since it intended to have successive events throughout the year; whereas, this seems to be a one (1)
time event. He stated Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code allows the applicant to apply for the
temporary assembly permit, without a change of use; however, he cautions the Board there is no
record whether the adjacent landowners have been notified. Commissioner Conway inquired as to
whether it was the applicant's responsibility to notify the surrounding property owners. Mr. Barker
clarified there is no requirement in the Weld County Code for the property owner to notify the adjacent
property owners; the Code only requires a notification to be published in the paper, which has been
completed. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Barker stated the applicant was not required to
post the notification on the property, and he has met the County's notification requirement. In response
to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Barker confirmed the applicant has obtained the necessary
insurance.
Minutes, March 21, 2011 2011-0756
Page 3 BC0016
Deputy Mercer stated she discussed the matter with Commander Ken Poncelow and he indicated he
has concerns regarding the parking and ingress/egress. She stated there is a possibility of up to
1,500 people attending the event, and the Sheriff's Office is concerned about the traffic accessing and
exiting County Road 31, since there have been issues with traffic control and the roadway becoming
jammed by other events in the past; therefore, it is requested that the applicant have a certified flagger
or law enforcement officer posted there. She stated there were also concerns expressed by
Commander Poncelow about noise and dust abatement. Deputy Mercer stated she has reviewed the
map; however, she is unsure as to how many trash cans there are going to be and she is concerned
the trash may be blown into the neighborhood. She stated the applicant will need to complete an
incident action plan with emergency medical and fire services. Chair Kirkmeyer inquired as to how the
County will ensure no gaming will occur. Deputy Mercer stated she needs to know what security
company will be utilized, and the security will need to monitor the event to ensure gaming is not
occurring. She stated it would be best to have at least one (1) law enforcement officer on-site. She
stated the application indicates the vehicles will be checked for alcohol, to ensure no alcohol is brought
onto the property; however, people may get alcohol past the vehicle check. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Deputy Mercer stated the application does not specify whether the security will
be paid. She stated she wants to know how many security officers will be on-site, where the security
will be posted, and what areas will be patrolled. In response to Commissioner Conway, Deputy Mercer
stated six (6) to 10 security officers would be an appropriate number for an event of this size, including
one (1) or two (2) officers in the parking area, and one (1) or two (2) in the event area if the area is
contained, and if the area is not contained, more officers will be necessary. Commissioner
Rademacher stated the application indicates eight (8) armed officers will be provided. Commissioner
Conway stated Mile High Stadium has security patting people down, to check for alcohol, and people
still manage to sneak it in. He indicated that as long as the applicant makes efforts to ensure large
quantities of alcohol are not brought on to the premises, that is sufficient, since there will always be a
few individuals who will break the rules, and those people should be discharged by security when they
are discovered.
Martin Gutierrez, applicant, stated he is trying to make the event as legal as possible, and there will be
an ambulance on the site at all times, as well as eight (8) security guards. He stated the event is
bonded and insured. He stated there was a traffic issue when he held an event five (5) years ago,
when he was not prepared. He stated he was told to close the gate after allowing 350 people to enter
the property at a time, and then there was an issue with cows in the street; however, there will not be
an issue with traffic this year, since he will open the doors early. Mr. Gutierrez stated he is trying to
comply with all the requirements to obtain the permit. In response to Commissioner Conway,
Mr. Gutierrez confirmed there will not be any organized gambling at the event. In response to
Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Gutierrez indicated he would like to hold these events once a month;
therefore, he is hoping the Board will grant him a USR Permit if this event is successful. In response to
Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Gutierrez confirmed there will only be horse racing at the event. He
indicated he is requesting the opportunity to hold a successful event and offer approximately 25 people
temporary work at the event. Chair Kirkmeyer stated Mr. Gutierrez needs to create an incident action
plan with Roy Rudisill, Office of Emergency Management, in case there is an incident, such as
dehydration, where the ambulance service is not able help all the affected people. She stated
Mr. Gutierrez also needs a traffic control plan, particularly regarding access onto U.S. Highway 85,
since people will access County Roads 18 and 16 from U.S. Highway 85. She stated there have been
other events which caused traffic concerns on roads it did not anticipate would be affected, for example
Heavenfest, which caused traffic concerns on 1-25, due to the access points. In response to
Mr. Gutierrez, Chair Kirkmeyer stated requiring a traffic control plan and an incident action plan is
consistent with what is required with other temporary assembly permits. In response to Chair
Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gutierrez inquired as to whether he needs to hire a private company to conduct traffic.
Minutes, March 21, 2011 2011-0756
Page 4 BC0016
In response to Commissioner Garcia, Janet Carter, Department of Public Works confirmed
Mr. Gutierrez will need to hire a traffic control company. Mr. Gutierrez indicated he is familiar with
traffic control plans and he worked for a related company. Ms. Carter stated the traffic control plan will
need to originate from U.S. Highway 85 to the event site, and Mr. Gutierrez will need to hire a company
with flaggers to place signs. She stated she and someone from the Sheriff's Office will review the traffic
control plan when it has been submitted.
Mr. Rudisill stated the incident action plan will not only require emergency medical services onsite, it
will also require coordination with the fire department, law enforcement, and paramedic service. He
stated even if Mr. Gutierrez has a private paramedic service on-site, he will still need to coordinate with
the Weld County or Platte Valley Paramedic Services. He stated it is possible a microburst or hailstorm
could occur where first responders need to access the property in a timely manner. In response to
Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. Carter stated Mr. Gutierrez can bring the traffic control plan in person, mail it, or
e-mail it, and it is requested that the traffic control plan be submitted to staff two (2) weeks before the
event. In response to Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Rudisill stated he and Mr. Gutierrez will work out the incident
action plan together, and he requested that Mr. Gutierrez contact him to schedule a meeting. In
response to Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Rudisill stated there is enough time to create the incident action plan
before the event. Chair Kirkmeyer provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was
given. Commissioner Long moved to approve said application, and he stated he appreciates
Mr. Gutierrez's willingness to increase his knowledge base, in order to satisfy the requirements of the
permit, which are in place for the safety and welfare of the attendees and to protect Mr. Gutierrez. In
response to Commissioner Garcia, Commissioner Long clarified his motion is contingent on incident
action and traffic control plans being submitted. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, and he
concurred with Commissioner Long's comments. Commissioner Conway concurred with the comments
made by Commissioner Long, and he expressed his appreciation for Mr. Gutierrez's diligence working
with the County staff. Chair Kirkmeyer stated that prior to this application being submitted,
Mr. Gutierrez came before the Board on a violation case for the same use. She stated she will vote in
favor of the temporary assembly application; however, Mr. Gutierrez should obtain a USR Permit if he
wants to continue this type of activity on the property. There being no further discussion, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF COLORADO
CATTLE COMPANY, LLC, DBA COLORADO CATTLE COMPANY, FOR A HOTEL AND
RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Mr. Barker indicated the
liquor license for this establishment expired; therefore, it has to apply for a new license. He stated it
appears the application materials are complete, Commissioner Long stated he conducted the on-site
inspection and it is a great establishment and a great venue. He stated the plan on paper matched
what he observed, and there are are no children allowed; therefore, there is no possibility of underage
drinking. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Commissioner Long confirmed he finds the applicant is of
good character and reputation, and has proven the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood. He
clarified there are no nearby schools or other liquor establishments.
J.P. Komorny, General Manager, Colorado Cattle Company, stated the liquor license expired in
October, due to an oversight, and the 90-day window to re-establish the liquor license had passed;
therefore, he had to submit a new application. He stated he did not believe the restaurant and main
lodge areas were accurately represented in the previous applications submitted to the Board; therefore,
he drafted revised drawings of the bar area, the restaurant, the lodge, and the main house. He stated
the property is 15,000 acres in size, with approximately 850 cattle, and 76 horses. Mr. Komorny stated
there are two (2) full-time staff members, and the property is a working cattle ranch from May through
October and it is a high-end luxury guest ranch which entertains people from around the world.
Commissioner Long stated there were 27 people from Ireland when he was at the facility. In response
to Commissioner Long, Mr. Komorny clarified nobody under 21 years of age is allowed on the ranch.
Minutes, March 21, 2011 2011-0756
Page 5 BC0016
Chair Kirkmeyer provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given.
Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the Resolution, with the findings contained, and
authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AGREEMENT FOR HOT BITUMINOUS MATERIAL/ASPHALT SUPPLY FOR 2011
(BID #61000052) AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC.:
Mr. Barker indicated he has not reviewed this agreement. Commissioner Conway moved to continue
the matter to March 23, 2011. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the motion carried
unanimously. (Clerk's Note: There was a motion to continue this item of business to the following
Board meeting; however, the item was already approved as part of the Consent Agenda; therefore, it is
not necessary to discuss the item at the following meeting.)
CONSIDER AGREEMENT FOR HOT BITUMINOUS MATERIAL/ASPHALT SUPPLY FOR 2011
(BID #61000052) AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA, DBA
LAFARGE WEST, INC.: Based on previous discussion, Commissioner Rademacher moved to
continue the matter to March 23, 2011. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried
unanimously. (Clerk's Note: There was a motion to continue this item of business to the following
Board meeting; however, the item was already approved as part of the Consent Agenda; therefore, it is
not necessary to discuss the item at the following meeting.)
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 67 BETWEEN CRS 14 AND 16: Ms. Carter stated said
closure will commence March 28, 2011, through April 1, 2011, in order to replace a culvert. She stated
the average daily traffic count for County Road 67 is 128 vehicles, according to a traffic count
conducted in the year 2008, and water will be used for dust control on the unpaved portions of the
detour route. She stated road signs and barricades will be utilized throughout the closure.
Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said temporary closure. Seconded by Commissioner
Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER GRANT AGREEMENT FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PLANNING
(HMEP), AND FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT
(FFATA)/FEDERAL SUB-AWARD REPORTING SYSTEM (FSRS) DATA REPORT AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN: Mr. Rudisill, indicated this grant is for $3,360.00, to coordinate with, and to assist,
the local Emergency Planning Committee with understanding which businesses are required to report,
based on the chemicals the companies have on-site. He indicated the agreement will help to ensure
Weld County is receiving the same information as the State Department of Public Health and
Environment, and the County will provide the information to the local fire departments and jurisdictions.
He stated there will be $800.00 in travel costs, which the County will pay from its Emergency
Management Office budget, and the grant will pay for supplies to produce maps and contractual
funding for a GIS employee to create the maps at the Sheriff's Office. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Rudisill confirmed a work session regarding this matter occurred approximately one (1) week ago.
Commissioner Conway moved to approve said grant agreement and report, and authorize the Chair to
sign. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (HIPAA) BUSINESS
ASSOCIATE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN — MCGEE, HEARNE, AND
PAIZ, LLP: Patti Russell, Director, Department of Human Resources, stated this is a business
associate agreement which is required by law for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (HIPAA), in order to make sure the County and the entities the County contracts with for auditing
purposes keep the County employees' health information confidential. Commissioner Rademacher
moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner
Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, March 21, 2011 2011-0756
Page 6 BC0016
SECOND READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2011-3, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 23 ZONING, CHAPTER 24 SUBDIVISIONS, AND
CHAPTER 26 RUA, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE: Commissioner Rademacher moved to read
Code Ordinance #2011-3 by title only. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried
unanimously. Mr. Barker read the Ordinance into the record by title.
Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services, stated the definition of Agricultural Exempt Building will
be deleted from Section 23-1-90, Definitions, since the definition exists in Chapter 29 as well, and the
definition of Home Occupation will be amended in the same section, to remove day care from Home
Occupation Class II and place it back under Home Occupation Class I, which has a lower fee. He
stated Section 23-2-180, Minor Amendments, will be deleted, since it has been determined the Minor
Amendment to a Site Plan Review process is no longer needed. He stated Section 23-2-200, Intent
and applicability, will be amended, since Senate Bill 35 requires a USR boundary to encumber an entire
property, and Section 23-2-260.B.18 will be amended to require a Certificate of Conveyance for USR
Permits, in order to help determine whether illegal land subdivisions or splits are occurring. Mr. Parko
stated Section 23-2-280 will be amended, and the Section pertains to partial USR Permit vacations,
such as when gravel mines request bonds to be released as the projects phase out, yet the sites are
continuing to operate under certain uses. He stated Section 23-2-285, Minor Amendments, will be
added to administratively streamline the process for Minor Amendments to USR Permits; for example,
when an individual requests the change of a development standard. He stated Exhibit A contains the
permit requirements, and the language he would like to be added to the Weld County Code is
delineated with stars, Mr. Parko stated Section 23-3-330, Duties of Department of Planning Services,
will be amended regarding property owner notification for non-1041 Major Facility of a Public Utility
USRs, to be similar to the 1041 USR regulations, which indicate all the surface owners will be notified
of USR requests concerning any type of pipeline in the ground. He stated Section 23-3-110.C.5,
containing the old Home Occupation language, will be deleted, and language will be added to
Section 23-3-310, I-1 (Industrial Zone District), regarding oil and gas production facilities, which
required USR Permits and will now be a Use by Right. He stated Section 23-3-420.D will be amended
to address Home Occupations in the Estate Zone District, since there were not zoning permits for
second dwellings or telecommunication towers in the Estate Zone District. Mr. Parko stated
Section 23-4-450, Wind generator standards, was discussed in a case before the Board of Adjustment,
where it tried to determine the minimum appropriate lot size for a zoning permit for a wind generator,
and in a work session with the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission, it was
agreed wind generators can be placed on property less than one (1) acre in size with a permit, as long
as it meets the setback requirements. He stated Section 23-4-600, Permit requirements, will be added,
regarding zoning permits for second dwellings, and Section 23-4-970, Home Occupation — Class II
permit requirements, will be added to address the submittal requirements, to make the requirements
consistent. Mr. Parko stated 23-7-30, Non-conforming uses of land, will be amended to state
non-conforming uses of land can remain as long as maintained, and if maintenance is not occurring,
the non-conforming use shall cease. He stated Section 24-8-30, Subdivision exemption, will be
amended to add a zoning permit for a telecommunication tower to the subdivision exemption process,
since telecommunication towers are typically deemed to be temporary, even though the towers can
remain at a location for a long time. He stated Section 26-1-50, PUD Districts in RUAs, will be
amended to exempt additional zoning permit requirements from the RUA. Chair Kirkmeyer thanked
Mr. Parko for all the staff time he and the Department of Planning Services has invested into the
process, and she stated the Board has placed an emphasis on making it easier to conduct business in
Weld County and making the Code more practical. Commissioner Conway concurred with Chair
Kirkmeyer's comments. Mr. Barker stated rationale may be placed in the Ordinance as supporting
documentation, and when it is sent for publishing, the instruction is to omit the rationale; however, he
suggested the Board remove the rationale, in order to prevent confusion. He stated he would prefer the
rationale be placed in a separate document than the Ordinance, and there was discussion about
whether to include procedural guides as appendices to Ordinances, which Mr. Parko presented at the
Minutes, March 21, 2011 2011-0756
Page 7 BC0016
Department of Planning's staff meeting, upon his request, and staff determined it would prefer the
procedural guides not be appendices. He stated staff determined it is best to include the language
regarding application requirements within the Code, and Mr. Parko concurred. Mr. Barker stated he
discussed the matter with Esther Gesick, Deputy Clerk to the Board, and they determined they will work
with Mr. Parko to determine the related language before the final reading of this Ordinance.
Commissioner Conway moved to approve Ordinance #2011-3, on second reading, without the rationale
comments. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the motion carried unanimously. (Clerk's Note:
Most of the changes Mr. Parko reviewed were adopted on the first reading of the Ordinance, and the
only changes adopted upon the second reading of the Ordinance were the deletion of the proposed
SPR Minor Amendment language, and the removal of the rationale from the Ordinance body. The
proposed USR language will be presented upon final reading, as indicated in Exhibit B.)
SECOND READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2011-4, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 29 BUILDING REGULATIONS, OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE: Commissioner Garcia moved to read Code Ordinance #2011-4 by title only.
Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Barker read the Ordinance into
the record by title. Mr. Parko indicated Section 29-3-110, Permit application, will be amended to add a
new deposit requirement, and Section 29-8-50, Extension of time for original building permit, will be
amended to allow the Building Official to extend building permits for up to one (1) year. He stated
Section 29-8-60, Re-permit, will be added, which states, "If the building or work authorized by the
original building permit, including extension if applicable, has not received final inspection on or before
the permit expiration date, all work shall cease until a new application is completed, fees to cover direct
County costs have been paid, and the re-permit is issued. The expiration date for re-permits shall be
determined by the scope of the work to be completed. No extensions shall be granted on re-permits if
the building official determines that life, safety, and health issues exist at time of the re-permit
application." He indicated Section 29-8-70, New permit, will be added, to state, "If the building or work
authorized by the original building permit, including extension if applicable, and re-permit, has not
received final inspection by the expiration date, a new permit will be issued upon receipt of completed
application, all applicable documentation, and payment of full permit fees, per the original permit fee
schedule. This will apply to any subsequent permits required to receive a final approval of the building
or work authorized by the original building permit." Commissioner Long moved to approve Ordinance
#2011-4, on second reading, without the rationale. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion
carried unanimously. (Clerk's Note: The changes Mr. Parko reviewed were approved upon first
reading of this Ordinance; therefore, no changes were approved on second reading, other than the
removal of the rationale from Ordinance body.)
SECOND READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2011-2, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 5 REVENUE AND FINANCE AND CHAPTER 20
ROAD IMPACT FEES, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE: Commissioner Rademacher moved to read
Code Ordinance #2011-2 by title only. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried
unanimously. Mr. Barker read the Ordinance into the record by title.
Elizabeth Relford, Department of Public Works, stated the County contracted with Duncan and
Associates on January 11, 2010, to review the impact fees and generate an updated study, which was
completed in October, 2010, and resulted in the proposed Ordinance.
Clancy Mullen, Duncan and Associates, stated the Board has already reviewed the proposed changes,
and he provided a brief summary. He stated the road impact fees were last updated in the year 2002,
and the drainage and capital expansion fees were adopted in 2005. He stated it is proposed the road
impact fees be expanded from strategic roads to include all arterials and collectors. He stated this is
not designed, or intended, to have the result of increasing the road impact fee itself; it simply gives the
County more flexibility in the expenditure of the funds, by basing the cost on additional capacity, and
Minutes, March 21, 2011 2011-0756
Page 8 BC0016
considering a larger list of improvement types. Mr. Mullen stated the fee schedule will also be
simplified and made easier to administer, as well as encourage changes of use for existing buildings.
He stated the drainage and capital expansion fees will be made more consistent with the road impact
fee, and subject to the same rules and regulations. He stated the capital expansion fee was originally
based on jail expansion, and the fee will now be able to be spent on a broader range of facilities.
Mr. Mullen stated the methodology will essentially remain the same; however, there will be fewer and
broader land use categories. He stated the number of land use categories will be reduced from
34 to 11, which will make it easier to classify and administer the fees and change of use fees will be
avoided. He stated the single family fee could increase as much as 67 percent, since the road costs
since the year 2002 have doubled according to the CDOT cost index, and increased 60 percent
according to the national indexes. Mr. Mullen stated fees will be increased for the major categories,
such as shopping center, residential, and office; however, the fees will be decreased for some of the
more detailed categories. He stated the Board indicated it did not want to see increases which are
more than the cost of inflation; therefore, the Colorado Consumer Price Index's increase of 14 percent
was utilized in the determinations for the increase for single family residences, which is approximately
two-thirds of the maximum rate increase allowed, and it was determined the other fees should also be
increased to two-thirds of the maximum, to maintain the proportionality. He stated most of the fees are
being decreased for the non-residential items. Mr. Mullen stated the County-wide drainage fee of
10 cents per square foot has been in place for six (6) years, and he is not proposing changing the fee,
since it has been determined the fee matches the current level of service. He proposed renaming the
Capital Expansion Fee, the County Facilities Fee. He stated the County needs to increase its non-
residential fees, based on the methodology, the single family fee will be increased approximately 10 to
12 percent, which is two-thirds of the maximum fee. Mr. Mullen stated the County has some of the
lowest fees in the area; the fees are somewhat higher than Adams County, yet if the County increased
its fees to 100 percent of the maximum allowed, the fees would remain lower than the City of Greeley's
fees. He stated there will be a provision to ensure the drainage and road fees are funneled into
different accounts, to prevent road fees from being spent on drainage. Chair Kirkmeyer inquired as to
whether it is too late to make changes to the benefit districts at this point. Ms. Relford indicated the
Board can establish whatever districts it chooses and it can amend those through the final reading; staff
was simply remaining consistent with previous years. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Barker
confirmed the Code indicated the Board can adjust the fees according to inflation. In response to Chair
Kirkmeyer, Ms. Relford confirmed adjusting the fees according to inflation does not automatically occur;
it is at the discretion of the Board. She stated the language in the Code was amended to have the
Board consider the inflation adjustment. Further responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Relford stated the
proposed fee changes were considered by the Planning Commission on February 1, 2010, and it
discussed the fees in relation to the current levels of service. She stated the higher fees are attributed
to level of service "C", which is what has been adopted by the County for maintaining its infrastructure,
and the Planning Commission discussed why the higher fee should not be adopted, in order to ensure
the County is maintaining its level of service. She stated the intent of the impact fees is essentially for
new development to contribute its proportionate share to the costs of providing and receiving the
benefits from the necessary capital improvements with the same level of service being provided for
existing development. She clarified the intent is to ensure that new development does not negatively
impact the level of service being provided for existing development, and the Planning Commission
ultimately recommended the inflationary increases being proposed in the Ordinance. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Ms. Relford stated she has not received any additional public input regarding
the proposed fee changes since the first reading, and there was no public testimony provided at the
Planning Commission Hearing. Chair Kirkmeyer gave the opportunity for public testimony; however,
none was provided. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve Ordinance #2011-2, on second reading.
Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion. Chair Kirkmeyer thanked Ms. Relford for all the
work she completed for the proposed Ordinance, and Commissioner Conway concurred. There being
no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously. (Clerk's Note: The changes reviewed by
Mr Mullen and Ms. Relford were approved on first reading; therefore, no changes were approved on
Minutes, March 21, 2011 2011-0756
Page 9 BC0016
second reading. A copy of Mr. Mullen's PowerPoint presentation was obtained for the record on
April 4, 2011, and is marked Exhibit A.)
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. Ordinances #2011-3, #2011-4, and #2011-2 were approved on second reading.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Tv n WELD COUNTY, COLORf,DO
ATTEST: J�`/
�.I ara Kirkmeyer, ChitlitiCtAr
1861
Weld County Clerk to the arIfr t t P
x
BY 5ean P. Conw Pro Tem
�(
u yClerk to the Boar
Wil . G
AP D RM: �,. c/
Da l�fd E Long
ou y Attorney
ougl Rademach7
Minutes, March 21, 2011 2011-0756
Page 10 BC0016
to. vti
va4s c4,e.
1.
Mil &-
CU kg, di , .
1.SIS -- . (it
en ln
r ` ~♦ 4> \
04 IF.: s 411 4:1:44 .64 •
-.
1 ti
smiCli) -O g
15 6
c.) titj. .. :t a"re W 14
lira ;mi
cia-I4 A
71 , __ bl)
A
' 1ctEV 9 42
op c3: :1le P9p 4 cpBQ Q3c5i rs
1"45 d
...0*-0 (1>
o
t
8 rt
low) i
st
Salk? ,1/4
a ;
" a sitrt‘IS LaP tali
rin 42 ,7
Ilal E3 t •(St] ‘-.I 8 942 I. I
Vii 'V
s c`;
m N
0 Cba ,• , • t • a+
Clidx
zit _ 'm," P +► i
•
O 1li 00
U =f14
la 0
V) V di CICS
4 .
• ."--k 8 41 4-i)
a O O O p v •� Z z v)s.' x c� ~
Z co 0 0 O 5 it . ‘_,
V �y:IS et F� v CT v v rt
� • o w
2 pc -"a V) ° C) l)
o ~ x oLin 1.
�'
N ,� O
llaMilli 0.) cits0 (1) fad•• Cad "ti =,.= 72) ! LI
;IE..) ,.....ig Pt -.4::)— --ir) ,1) r:ct 2 ft
►--1
M
Hello