HomeMy WebLinkAbout20112420.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
SEPTEMBER 12, 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
Administration Building, Greeley, Colorado, September 12, 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 Conway moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of September 7, 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, Weld County resident, read parts of an overview of the Data Quality and
Regulatory Flexibility Acts into the record and submitted a copy of the overview, marked Exhibit A.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
BIDS:
APPROVE BID #61100067, IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERSECTION OF CRS 17 AND 34 -
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Monica Mika, Director of Finance and Administration, stated this
bid was presented to the Board on August 29, 2011.
Wayne Howard, Department of Public Works, stated this bid is for a Federal grant project to improve
the intersection of County Roads 17 and 34, which has a sight distance issue when looking south on
County Road 17. He stated three (3) bid proposals were submitted, ranging from $136,193.50 to
$172,123.00, and the engineer's estimate for the cost of the project was $155,000.00. He
recommended approval of the low bid from Mountain Constructors, Inc., and he stated the County has
received permission from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to move forward with this
Minutes, September 12, 2011 2011-2420
aUt
Page 1 BC0016
project. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the low bid from Mountain Constructors, Inc., in
the amount of $136,193.50, as recommended by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the
motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER GRANT CLOSEOUT SUMMARY FOR VARIOUS WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Judy Griego, Director, Department of Human
Services, stated this summary was reviewed as a "pass-around" document, along with a memorandum
dated September 1, 2011, and it is a requirement of the Colorado Department of Labor for year-end
closeout procedures. She stated the summary provides a reconciliation of revenues and expenses for
Program Years 2008 and 2009, for a total amount of $3,640,378.03. Commissioner Long moved to
approve said grant closeout summary and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner
Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AMENDMENT #3 TO WELD COUNTY YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS GRANT
AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON COMMUNITY
SERVICE, COLORADO AMERICORPS PROGRAM: Ms. Griego stated this amendment is for the
continuation of a grant for the third year, and it was reviewed as a "pass-around" document, along with
a memorandum dated September 1, 2011. She stated the grant was originally awarded in October,
2009, and this amendment is for a term commencing October 5, 2011, through October 4, 2012. She
stated the total budget is in the amount of $347,821.00. Commissioner Conway stated when
discussing this grant in previous years, the Board expressed the desire for the projects that the funding
is used towards to occur within Weld County. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Griego
confirmed the guidelines for the grant will remain the same for the upcoming Program Year.
Commissioner Garcia stated there is a huge decrease in funding between the years 2012 and 2013,
and he inquired as to whether the Department plans to seek other funding or change the size of the
Americorps Program. Ms. Griego stated the funding is somewhat tied to the Federal budget, and if
such a decrease occurs, there will be significant changes. In response to Commissioner Garcia, Ms.
Griego confirmed the County will have to wait and see what happens, and consider contingencies.
Commissioner Conway moved to approve said amendment and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded
by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER EMPLOYMENT FIRST COUNTY PLAN FOR 2010-2011 PROGRAM OPERATIONS AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Ms. Griego stated this plan was reviewed by the Board as a
"pass-around" document, along with a memorandum dated September 1, 2011, and the plan outlines
the program design for the Employment First Program and how the Department will provide services to
food assistance recipients and applicants who are mandated to participate in a Works Program. She
stated the plan is for a two-year period commencing October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2012,
and the total amount of funding is projected to be $349,296.71, which is the same as the current
funding level, Commissioner Long moved to approve said plan and authorize the Chair to sign.
Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR 3.2 PERCENT BEER RETAIL LICENSE AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - MARY JENSEN, DBA HIGHLANDLAKE, INC.: Brad Yatabe,
Assistant County Attorney, stated he reviewed the application and staff's comments, and staff has no
issues with the application; therefore, he recommends approval. Commissioner Garcia moved to
approve said application and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher,
the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES — F AND P, LLC: Christopher
Woodruff, Assessor, stated this property is located within the City of Greeley, and it is the office building
for Flood and Peterson. He stated this petition is for Tax Years 2009 and 2010, which had an appraisal
Minutes, September 12, 2011 2011-2420
Page 2 BC0016
date of June 30, 2008, and information from the year 2007 and the first half of the year 2008 was
considered in making the appraisal. He stated staff did not complete the cost approach due to the age
of the building; however, the market and income approaches were considered, as required by law.
Mr. Woodruff stated the property was valued at $123.00 per square foot, and the market sales for the
period indicated a value of $113.00 per square foot to $157.00 per square foot for similar buildings. He
stated staff valued the building at the lower end of the range, since the higher end of the range was
mostly new construction, which yielded a market value of $2,234,500.00. He stated the lease rates for
the period ranged from $9.53 per square foot to $15.32 per square foot, and staff correlated to a
median lease rate of $12.00 per square foot, with typical expenses being considered, and an eight (8)
percent capitalization rate being used. Mr. Woodruff stated the value was determined to be
$2,206,292.00 using the income approach. He stated he believes the value of $2,234,500.00 is
accurate, and he recommended denial of the petition. He stated he has reviewed the information
submitted by the applicant; however, he is not persuaded the value should be changed. No
representatives of F and P, LLC, were present. Commissioner Garcia stated one of the properties
considered by the petitioner was valued at $34.68, which significantly lowered the average, and the
petitioner agreed on the capitalization rate of eight (8) percent. He moved to deny said petition for
abatement, based on staff's recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - WINDSOR COMMONS SELF
STORAGE, LLC: Mr. Woodruff stated this petition is for Tax Years 2009 and 2010, and the property
was constructed in the year 2003. He stated the property is in average condition for its age and use,
and the property includes an on-site office and residence for its manager, and eight (8) mini-warehouse
buildings, with a total of 260 storage units. He stated a cost approach was considered, which yielded
an estimated value of $1,961,497.00, and the market approach indicated a range of value from $22.69
per square foot to $47.50 per square foot. Mr. Woodruff stated since the property is in average
condition, staff correlated to a value of $30.00 per square foot, which yields a value of $1,254,990.00
for the market approach. He stated the agent provided actual income for the property for the period,
which was $130,358.00, and with a 11.7 capitalization rate and the net operating income, the value was
determined to be $1,114,009.00. He stated he believes the final value of $1,254.990.00 is appropriate
for those Tax years 2009 and 2010; therefore, he recommends denial of the petition. Mr. Woodruff
stated he considered the information provided by the agent; however, he is not persuaded by it. No
representatives of Windsor Commons Self Storage, LLC, were present. Commissioner Garcia stated
the Assessor's office did a good job in assessing this property value and it utilized a higher
capitalization rate than the one utilized by the petitioner, which is to the petitioner's benefit, and he
moved to deny said petition for abatement, based on staff's recommendation. Seconded by
Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES — CITY OF GREELEY:
Mr. Woodruff stated there was some confusion in the office because there was overlapping ownership
when the plat was filed, partly in the name of the sub-divider and partly in the name of the City, and
staff completed a valuation for the year 2010. He stated upon further discussion with the involved
parties, staff became convinced the property had been conveyed to the City at the time of the valuation;
therefore, the property is tax-exempt, and approval of the petition is recommended. He stated the
original valuation was $483,864.00, and the entire amount should be abated to make the property
exempt. Mr. Woodruff stated the abatement report was incorrectly completed, and it should indicate an
original value of $483,864.00, and a corrected value of $0.00, with an abated amount of $463,864.00
and a refund amount of$10,639.48. He stated the petition is being presented to the Board for approval
since the refund amount exceeds $10,000.00. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said
abatement of taxes, in the amount of $10,639.48, based on staffs recommendation. Seconded by
Commissioner Rademacher, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, September 12, 2011 2011-2420
Page 3 BC0016
CONSIDER CHANGE IN BOUNDARY LINES OF COMMISSIONER DISTRICTS IN WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO: Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated this is follow-up to a hearing held 30 days ago.
He stated the process in Section 30-10-306, C.R.S., requires that after every census the boundaries
are evaluated. He stated the map proposed by the Clerk and Recorder has been published and the
map was considered at the previous hearing, and nobody provided testimony regarding the map at the
hearing. He stated one response was received, and it was provided by Jeff Hare, in the form of a letter
expressing his position. Mr. Barker stated the process needs to be completed by September 30, 2011,
and the Board will meet the deadline if it approves the change in the boundary lines today.
Steve Moreno, Clerk and Recorder, stated Mr. Barker explained the item well, and he is just waiting on
the final decision of the Board. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Barker stated this is not a public
hearing; however, he recommended allowing public testimony since Mr. Hare submitted a written
response.
Mr. Hare stated he is available to answer any questions the Board has regarding his letter, which
provided reasons for potential changes to the District boundaries. Chair Kirkmeyer stated she does not
have any questions regarding Mr. Hare's letter, and the Board does not have to wait for the census to
adjust the boundary lines of the Commissioner Districts. She stated the boundaries are regularly
considered, to make sure the population remains consistent and even throughout the Districts, and if
the Districts are determined to not be even, the boundaries will be adjusted. She stated the Clerk and
Recorder's Office is good at evaluating the boundaries, and the Board attended two (2) work sessions
on this matter, resulting in agreement on the current map. Chair Kirkmeyer stated the Board
considered when people were last able to vote on the Commissioner positions, to ensure precincts
were not changed in a way which would prevent people from being able to vote for their County
Commissioner for three (3) to six (6) years. She stated there was a precinct in southern Weld County
which was changed in recent years and the Board was considering including it in the changes;
however, it did not change its District, due to the Board wanting to prevent the situation where the
residents would not have an opportunity to vote on County Commissioner for an extended period of
time. She thanked Mr. Hare for his letter and attending the hearing. Commissioner Conway stated the
Board annually reviews the Commissioner District boundaries, since Weld County has grown so fast
over the last decade, and the State statute gives the Commissioners the authority to set the
Commissioner District boundaries. He stated staff does a good job of establishing where the boundary
lines should be, and it was only necessary to make minor changes to what the Clerk and Recorder's
Office proposed. Commissioner Long moved to approve the change in the boundary lines of the
Commissioner Districts in Weld County, Colorado. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER DECLARING CERTAIN EQUIPMENT AS SURPLUS PROPERTY AND APPROVING
SALE OF SAME AT AUCTION WITH ROLLER AND ASSOCIATES: Barb Connolly, Controller, stated
as she was preparing for the auction which will include all the small vehicles, she discovered this water
tanker had previously been overlooked when the construction auction occurred a couple of months ago.
Commissioner Rademacher moved to declare said equipment as surplus property and approve the sale
of the same at an auction with Roller and Associates on September 14, 2011. Seconded by
Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER VETERAN SERVICE OFFICERS MONTHLY REPORT AND CERTIFICATION OF PAY
AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Ms. Mika stated she has reviewed this item and she recommends
approval. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said report and certification of pay, and
authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, September 12, 2011 2011-2420
Page 4 BC0016
PLANNING:
CONSIDER RECORDED EXEMPTION #5104 - MARC AND JILL ARNUSCH: Michelle Martin,
Department of Planning Services, stated this matter is being presented to the Board, with the
recommendation for denial, since the applicant is unwilling to meet Condition of Approval 4.D, which
states, "the applicants shall address the requirements of Weld County School District RE-3J, as stated
in the referral response dated April 20, 2011. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing, to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services". She stated Lot A is proposed to be approximately
2.5 acres, with Lot B being approximately 77.5 acres, and all the improvements are located in the
southwestern corner of the property. She stated the improvements consist of two homes; one house is
located on Lot B, and the second house is located on Lot A, and there are additional improvements
located between the two (2) residences. Ms. Martin stated Section 24-8-40.K.1 of the Weld County
Code indicates: "The approval of an exemption may be conditioned or restricted to carry out the intent
of Section 24-1-30 of this Chapter or to mitigate impacts or address concerns of referral agencies.
Conditions and restrictions may include, but are not limited to, designation of building envelopes,
creation of conservation easements or other legal mechanisms to encourage agricultural production on
the parcels and to maintain irrigation water for the parcels, the utilization of existing housing, and the
satisfaction of school district concerns, pursuant to the requirements of Section 30-28-133(4)(a), C.R.S.
Conditions of approval shall be met prior to recording the plat, and restrictions may be enforced by
means of notes on the plat."
Marc Arnusch, applicant, stated he is here to discuss the impact fee proposed by the School District.
He stated he has tried to resolve the issue through numerous discussions with the School District
administration, and the School District indicated it is its policy to request this fee to mitigate any issues
pertaining to new growth; however, he does not believe his property meets the definition of new growth.
He stated the initial improvements to the property were originally established in the year 1919, and the
newest improvements occurred in the year 1974. He stated the proposed Recorded Exemption will not
encumber the school district; he merely wants to split a parcel, in order to sell a set of improvements to
a current employee, and he does not have any plans for applying for any building permits or
constructing any new improvements on the property. Mr. Arnusch stated if the situation changes, he
can manage the issue directly with the School District at that time, and he requested that the Board
waive the School District fee for this instance. He stated it should be up to the new property owner
whether they choose to construct additional improvements on Lot A, and he encouraged the School
District to consider Recorded Exemptions on a case by case basis. In response to Commissioner
Conway, Mr. Arnusch confirmed there are no plans to apply for building permits for Lot A in the future,
and if there are no additional improvements, there is no potential for additional school children to reside
on the property and impact the School District. Mr. Arnusch stated it does not make sense for any new
growth to occur on Lot A, since it is 2.5 acres in size, with the primary residence and a number of
outbuildings, and the improvements are already subject to property taxes, which are directed to the
School District. He reiterated he does not understand how the Recorded Exemption will cause an
impact to the School District at this time, or in the future.
Edward Meier, Weld County School District RE-3J, stated this is a subdivision of two (2) lots, and Lot A
has a house on it; however, Lot B has a house which was converted into an office in the year 1974, and
a new house may be constructed on the lot, or the office could be converted back into a house, creating
the potential for an additional family to reside on the property. He stated the cash-in-lieu of land
dedication is intended to mitigate the issues caused by a new family in the School District, and it was
suggested the School District could take care of the fee at a later time; however, there is no way to
monitor and enforce it. He stated there is no process in place for the School District to be able to
collect the fee beyond the Recorded Exemption process, and this is cash in lieu of a land dedication;
therefore, it makes sense it would occur at the time of the land division, or the time of the platting for
developments. Mr. Meier stated Weld County School District RE-3J, along with other School Districts
Minutes, September 12, 2011 2011-2420
Page 5 BC0016
he has discussed the matter with, would be willing to collect the fee at the time the building permits are
issued if there was a way to monitor it. He stated if the County would be willing to collect the fee, even
at a small cost, the School District would be open to it, and landowners have suggested numerous
times that the School District fee be collected at the time the building permits are issued; however,
unfortunately there is no mechanism in place yet. He stated the School District is currently using these
cash-in-lieu of land monies towards the purchase of a future junior high and high school site; therefore,
the monies are being appropriately used, and this is a developing area. Mr. Meier stated the school
site will not be needed for approximately ten (10) to fifteen years; however, the School District may not
have the opportunity to purchase the site at a later time. He stated he is concerned about reviewing
these matters on a case-by-case basis, since it may result in many cases which require consideration
by the Board, which may become time-consuming. He further stated consistency is important and the
School District always operates under the assumption there will be a house placed on each lot, and it
will never have the opportunity to collect the cash-in-lieu of land after the subdivision has occurred.
Commissioner Conway inquired as to whether the applicant would have to pay the School District fee if
they converted the existing office back into a residence. Mr. Barker stated there was a recent change
to the Weld County Code which allows for a second occupied dwelling on a property, and the Board
has not placed the requirement for School District impact fees on those situations. He stated the
School District fee was made a requirement for Recorded Exemptions in the mid 1990s. Commissioner
Conway stated his point is if the applicant chose to use the office as a residency, there would be no
School District impact fee under the current Weld County Code. Mr. Barker concurred. Commissioner
Conway stated it seems the County is requesting an impact fee for a change which will not have an
impact on the School District. Mr. Barker stated the reason the collection of the fee was added to the
Weld County Code was to recognize that a lot has the capability at any time to construct a residence,
even though there may not be one, or plans for one, at the time of the land division. He stated an
applicant may indicate they will not place a residence on a particular lot; however, the lot has the
potential for a single-family residence to be added. Mr. Meier concurred and stated this is the reason
the School District is requesting the fee at this time. Mr. Arnusch reiterated there are no new buildings
on the property, and the primary farmhouse was constructed 37 years ago. He stated this fee is to
mitigate the effects of new growth, and there is nothing in the division of this parcel to suggest new
growth will occur. He stated he understands he could request to construct a house on the property in
the future; however, he feels it should be the job of the School District to work with the County to
develop a process to collect the fees at the time of construction. Chair Kirkmeyer inquired as to
whether it is possible a family with school-age children could move into the home on Lot B.
Mr. Arnusch stated it would be difficult to place a family in the house on Lot B, since it is less than
700 square feet in size, and it was constructed in the year 1919. Ms. Martin stated it has come to her
attention that the applicant will be applying for a new well for the small house on Lot B; therefore, she is
requesting that two (2) new notes be placed on the plat. She stated the first note will state, "prior to
release of building permits, the applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services
that Lot B has an adequate water supply of adequate quality, quantity, and dependability," and the
second note will state, "potential purchasers should be aware that Lot B may not eligible for a domestic
well permit which allows for outside irrigation and/or the watering of stock animals. The State Division
of Water Resources issues all well permits." In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Martin stated
reiterated she would like to see these Conditions of Approval as notes on the plat, and she confirmed
the notes will be numbers 5.G.4 and 5 and the remaining items will be renumbered accordingly. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Arnusch stated he concurs with the changes proposed. In
response to Chair Kirkmeyer and Commissioner Conway, Mr. Arnusch indicated he understands and
agrees with the other Conditions of Approvals, with the exception of 4.D. Chair Kirkmeyer stated the
Board has discussed this matter before and determined the applicant does not need to meet the
requirement to the satisfaction of the school district; they simply need to address the requirement.
Commissioner Conway inquired as to whether the applicant is being told he cannot pursue without the
School District obligation being fulfilled. Mr. Arnusch confirmed this is the case; he stated the letter he
received from the Planning Commission refers to the School District impact fee as a requirement. He
Minutes, September 12, 2011 2011-2420
Page 6 BC0016
stated he does not view the fee as a requirement and he has tried numerous times to have it waived.
Commissioner Conway stated he is fine with removing the School District fee requirement in this case
because he is convinced there will be no impact to the School District, and under the current system,
the applicant could move in to the existing structure on Lot B without a fee being assessed. He stated
common sense needs to prevail in the process; however, he realizes this is frustrating for the School
District. Commissioner Rademacher concurred with Chair Kirkmeyer that the applicant has met the
intent of the Weld County Code, and he stated he is not sure why Recorded Exemptions with this
situation must be considered by the Board. He indicated he is in support of the applicant's request to
not be subject to the fee. Commissioners Long and Garcia concurred with Commissioner Rademacher.
Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve Recorded Exemption #5104, with the amended
Conditions of Approval and the determination that the applicants have met the intent of the Weld
County Code and Condition of Approval 4.D. Commissioner Long seconded the motion. In response
to Commissioner Conway, Chair Kirkmeyer confirmed Mr. Arnusch can leave with the understanding
that Condition of Approval 4.D has been met and he will not be subject to a School District impact fee.
Commissioner Long stated the last time the Board considered a situation where the applicant did not
want to pay the School District impact fee, the Board discussed that a legislative change is needed to
establish a mechanism for collection of the fee at a later time. He stated he does not want the County
to get involved with the collection of the School District impact fees, and he does not believe the Board
is the right body to create a mechanism for the collection of the fees at a later time. Chair Kirkmeyer
recommended that the applicant submit documentation of the conversations the applicant had with the
School District to staff, in order to have documentation on record that he addressed the requirement.
She stated the applicant suggested the County and the School District develop a process for later
collection of the School District impact fees; however, the County cannot enforce the payment of the
impact fees, and it would be difficult for the County to collect the fee when the construction occurs and
it would require additional staff. She stated it should be the responsibility of School District to collect
the fee; however, she does not know how the process will work. There being no further discussion, the
motion carried unanimously.
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, September 12, 2011 2011-2420
Page 7 BC0016
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
:LD COUNTY, COLO O
ATTEST: 5 G� c_i ,ti
.' 1 irkmeyer, C it
Weld County Clerk to the Board , t\ ,,=C, .�. /7
'\. ,`;, • • way, Pro-Tem
BY: A-�/) l A
Deputy Clerk to the Board "
i + Garcia
cx E) ,,C.c,,\)
David E. Long'
c`oug Ra � 1� t/�
Doug�s Radema her
Minutes, September 12, 2011 2011-2420
Page 8 BC0016
I ,
Overview of Data Quality Act and Regulatory Flexability Act Page 69
I
I OVERVIEW OF DATA QUALITY ACT AND
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT
I
The Data Quality Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act are two other federal statutes that
can be used to require accountability of the federal agencies during the coordination process.
These statutes do not require coordination themselves, rather they call upon the agencies to
provide and substantiate the quality of the material they are basing their decisions upon, and to
review the economic impact on small entities.
DATA QUALITY ACT
The "Data Quality Act" is a name which we have given to a two paragraph statute
which was included in a budget appropriations bill. The two paragraphs, as part of the
appropriations bill had no specific and separate name.
The paragraphs which are set forth in the following section required the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidelines to all federal agencies to ensure and
maximize the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of information used in making their
decisions. The information was specifically to include statistics.
' The OMB issued its guidelines as ordered. They require every federal agency to prepare
and follow Data Quality Guidelines. When data is of concern, when you believe that a
decision has been made on faulty or incorrect data, look up the guidelines of the agency making
the decision which govern its data quality insurance.
The coordinating local government can then call on the agency to verify its data in
accord with its own guidelines. This statute provides one of the most effective tools available to
coordinating local governments.
The coordinating local government can challenge the quality of the data, and in that
way determine the specific data upon which the agency has relied, and test the accuracy and
soundness of that data.
The process is simple to execute. When the agency has made a decision and you are
suspicious of the data on which the decision is based, you simply by letter request that the
agency disclose to you the data upon which the decision is based and disclose to you the quality
check which they have run on the data pursuant to their data quality guidelines; plus you ask
for their data quality guidelines.
When they comply, it gives you a chance to see the specific data and determine the
validity of the data to base the decision. If they do not comply, then you follow their guidelines
as to how you appeal their refusal. Remember, this is different from Freedom of Information
EXHIBIT
.
Page 70 CALL AMERICA 2009 Section B - Coordination Authority
Act (FOIA). This is not a request for production of documents subject to FOIA. This is a
request pursuant to the Data Quality Act pursuant to Office of Management and Budget and
the Agency guidelines. FOIA charges do not apply.
•
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the federal agency to conduct an analysis of
any rule or regulation which it issues to determine any adverse impact on small "units" which
include small local government units of less than 50,000 in population. If there is a rule or
regulation, or its implementation that is being used to plague you as a county, city, town or
district or your constituents, simply request to see a copy of the agency's flexibility study as
required by the statute.
In the Federal Register notice when a rule or regulation is published, the agencies
usually include a notation that they have complied with this statute, however, rarely is this the
case. To do so is time consuming. Therefore, requesting to see their analysis often reveals they
have not complied with the law in regards to this statute.
I
r
Hello