HomeMy WebLinkAbout20112285.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
AUGUST 22, 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, August 22, 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
(Clerk's Note: Due to technical difficulties, there is no digital recording available for this meeting.)
MINUTES: Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of August 17, 2011, as printed. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion,
and it carried unanimously.
READ ORDINANCE BY TAPE: Commissioner Rademacher moved to read Code Ordinances #2011-6
and #2011-9 by tape. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the Certification of
Hearings conducted on August 17, 2011, as follows: 1) USR#1783 — Union Pacific Railroad Company,
do Jeremy Long. Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: Doug Meyer, Weld County resident, read a poem about taxation by Charley Reese
into the record.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Long seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
11
nj a' Minutes, August 22, 2011 2011-2285
Page 1 BC0016
BIDS:
PRESENT BID #61100118, CUSTODIAL SERVICES FOR SOUTHWEST WELD COUNTY,
SOUTHEAST WELD COUNTY, AND CARBON VALLEY BUILDINGS - DEPARTMENT OF
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS: Monica Mika, Director of Finance and Administration, stated said bid
will be presented for approval on September 7, 2011, and five (5) vendors submitted bid proposals.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 42 BETWEEN CRS 41 AND 43: Janet Carter,
Department of Public Works, stated said closure will commence August 29, 2011, through
September 16, 2011, in order to rehabilitate Bridge 42/41A. She stated the average daily traffic count
for County Road 42 is 64 vehicles, according to a traffic count conducted in the year 2007, and water
will be used for dust control on the detour route. She stated road signs and barricades will be used
throughout the closure. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said temporary closure. Seconded
by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AUTHORIZING WELD COUNTY TREASURER TO ESTABLISH WELD COUNTY
FEDERAL MINERAL LEASE ACT DISTRICT FUND: Barb Connolly, Controller, stated this Resolution
will facilitate the District approved by the Board last week for the Federal mineral lease funds.
Commissioner Conway thanked Don Warden, Director of Budget Management and Analysis, and Chair
Kirkmeyer, for their work on this matter, and he stated this will help Weld County capture more of the
revenue generated by local oil and gas production. He stated this is the smart thing to do, and he
moved to authorize the Weld County Treasurer to establish the Weld County Federal Mineral Lease Act
District Fund. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the motion carried unanimously.
OLD PLANNING BUSINESS:
CONSIDER RECORDED EXEMPTION #4754 - THOMAS RYAN (CON'T FROM 07/25/11): Chris
Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated the applicant's attorney indicated they are close to
reaching an agreement with the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority; therefore, he recommends
referring the matter back to staff. Commissioner Long inquired as to whether there is a way to ensure
the Condition of Approval is completed in a timely fashion if the Board refers the matter back to staff,
since the applicant resides out of the State. Mr. Gathman stated this issue was the largest hurdle, and
since this seems to be close to being resolved, he thinks the matter will be quickly completed. Chair
Kirkmeyer stated she was not present for the previous hearing and she requested that Mr. Gathman
provide a brief summary of the history. Mr. Gathman stated the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority
wants an avigation easement agreement, and it seems to be close to being completed. He stated this
matter was originally considered by the Board in June, 2011, and it was then considered again in July,
2011, before being continued to today.
Tom Hellerich, representative for the applicant, stated the applicant is also present today, and the
applicant resides out of State; however, he owns this property. He stated they participated in a good
meeting Friday with the Airport Manager, where they discussed the nature of the language which will be
in the agreement. He stated the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority Board does not meet until next
month; therefore, he requests that the Board conditionally approve the Recorded Exemption, contingent
upon the agreement being completed. Commissioner Garcia stated after the last meeting, he
discussed this matter with Gary Cyr, the Airport Manager, and Mr. Cyr did not know about this situation
until he spoke to him. Mr. Hellerich indicated he had never received responses to his attempts to
communicate; however, the meeting on Friday went well. In response to Commissioner Conway,
Mr. Hellerich confirmed this is the last outstanding Condition of Approval, as far as he understands.
Commissioner Conway stated the Greeley-Weld County Airport Board will not be meeting in August,
2011; however, he cannot imagine the agreement will not be approved when the Board meets in
September, 2011. Commissioner Long moved to conditionally approve Recorded Exemption #4754,
Minutes, August 22, 2011 2011-2285
Page 2 BC0016
contingent upon the avigation agreement being approved by the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority
Board. Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion. Chair Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether
Commissioner Conway's motion was appropriate for his intent, since the matter was previously
approved by staff.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, suggested a motion be made to refer the matter back to staff, since the
Recorded Exemption has already been conditionally approved. Chair Kirkmeyer concurred with
Mr. Barker's suggestion for the motion, and she stated that she thinks the outstanding Condition of
Approval has been met. Commissioner Long withdrew his previous motion, and he moved to refer
Recorded Exemption #4754 back to staff for processing. Commissioner Rademacher seconded the
motion. Commissioner Conway inquired as to whether it is appropriate for Commissioner Garcia and
himself to vote on this matter, since they are both on the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority Board.
Mr. Barker indicated Commissioners Conway and Garcia should vote on this matter. There being no
further discussion, the motion carried unanimously
NEW PLANNING BUSINESS:
CONSIDER RECORDED EXEMPTION #5089 — JACK ZIMBELMAN: Michelle Martin, Department of
Planning Services, stated the applicant applied for a three-lot Recorded Exemption on March 15, 2011,
and staff conditionally approved the application on May 5, 2011. She stated Condition of Approval #4.6
needs to be addressed, which states, "The applicant shall address the requirements of Weld County
School District RE-3J, as stated in the referral response dated March 17, 2011. Evidence of such shall
be submitted, in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning Services." She stated the
applicant has concerns about paying the impact fee so he requested this meeting. Ms. Martin clarified
none of the Conditions of Approval have been addressed; however, this is the only one the applicant
has concerns about.
Kirk Goble, representative for the applicant, stated the purpose of the Recorded Exemption is to
remove existing improvements from the rest of the property, and to preserve the ditches, wells, and
water delivery structures on the irrigated farmland. He stated the applicant does not have a problem
with any of the other Conditions of Approval; only #4.B. He stated proposed Lot B is approximately
22 acres in size, and the parcel is used by Phillips Petroleum and it has been in various states of
operation and various states of disrepair over many years. Mr. Goble stated the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) ordered a clean-up, which has been ongoing for at least ten (10) years, and
he does not anticipate the clean-up will be complete in 10 more years. He stated the site would not be
desirable for anyone to propose a residential structure. He stated he supports School District RE-3J
and he is an alumnus of it; however, the County lacks the mechanism to collect impact fee when
building is proposed; therefore, he requests that the payment of the school impact fee be waived for
this case. He encouraged the Board to look into ways to have the impact fees charged at the time
building permits are applied for on the property. Commissioner Garcia inquired as to whether the
clean-up area is restricted to Lot B or applies to the entire property. Mr. Goble stated the clean-up is
limited to proposed Lot B, he believes; however, it was difficult for him to research the matter since the
EPA does not index by property owners names or by legal descriptions. He stated the zone of the
clean-up is the footprint of proposed Lot B, and the physical contours of the land and the roads which
have separated the parcel for 50 years were identified as the boundaries for proposed Lot B. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Goble clarified proposed Lot B may be suitable for building a
residence after the clean-up is completed, and if the lot is cleaned up in 10 years and the applicant
wants to construct a residential structure, he will pay the School District Impact Fee at that time.
Edward Meier, School District RE-3J, stated the beginning of the process is the only time that the
District has leverage for collecting the Impact Fees for future schools, and this Recorded Exemption
indicates potential houses on Lots B and C; therefore, the District is requesting $1,232.00 per lot, for a
total of $2,464.00. He stated this fee is consistent with every other Recorded Exemption that has been
Minutes, August 22, 2011 2011-2285
Page 3 BC0016
created. He indicated that if there was another point in the process where the District would have
similar leverage in collecting the Impact Fees, it would consider delaying the collection of the Impact
Fees, and the District has written the County concerning this matter before. Mr. Meier reiterated there
is currently no mechanism in place to collect the Impact Fees at a different point in the process;
therefore, it must collect the fees at this time. Chair Kirkmeyer indicated there seems to be an issue
with the system. Mr. Barker stated when the Board divides a property, at that time the requirement
must be satisfied with dedicated land or cash-in-lieu of land, according to State statute, and the Board
has interpreted that to be applicable to Recorded Exemptions also. He stated the timing when the
requirement is to be satisfied is at the time when the Recorded Exemption is approved, and the Board
does not have the power to defer the payment of the School District Impact Fees until when the building
permits are issued. He stated it is not the responsibility of the potential buyer of the lot to pay the
School District Impact Fees, rather, an indication from the School District that payment at a later date is
necessary. Mr. Barker stated School District RE-3J has submitted a letter indicating it is opposed to
delaying the Impact Fees. Chair Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether there is the potential for a home to
be constructed on Lot C. Mr. Goble stated Lot C is an agricultural outlot and the applicant has no
desire to build there; however, it will technically be eligible as a building site. He stated there are
impact fees being requested for two (2) of the lots; however, in the past the Board has worked to
eliminate or waive the Impact Fees for the agricultural portions of the properties. In response to
Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Goble stated no fees have been paid by the applicant. Chair
Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether the applicant would be opposed to submitting a letter indicating his
request to defer the payment of the Impact Fees to a later date, when the building permits are issued.
Mr. Barker inquired as to how the process is supposed to work if the applicant has sold the lots, and
there are new property owners. He reiterated the School District Impact Fees should be the
responsibility of the applicant; not a purchaser of the lots, according to State statute. Commissioner
Long stated the reason the County Code indicates the School District Impact Fees must be collected at
the time the application is approved is because the County did not have the technical means to allow
payment at a later time; however, now the County does have the means, and there has always been
the perception that when the County had the ability to record and track the Impact Fees, the Code
would be changed to reflect that. Mr. Barker reiterated the bottom line is the State statute requires that
the applicant be the party to satisfy the requirement. He stated deferment of the payment of the Impact
Fees to the time the building permits are issued shifts the responsibility to the person receiving the
building permit, which is not usually the applicant. He stated there are methods to make sure the
applicant ensures the cash-in-lieu of land is satisfied with the Impact Fees being deferred; however, the
Board needs to specify the applicant is the party responsible for paying the Impact Fees. Chair
Kirkmeyer suggested the instruction could be placed on the plat, and Mr. Barker concurred.
Commissioner Long indicated there must be a legal mechanism to collect the Impact Fees, since the
Board has granted waivers in the past for the alternate collection of fees. Mr. Goble stated if a building
permit is applied for, it will be the applicant applying for it. Chair Kirkmeyer stated the property could be
sold, in which case, it would not be the applicant. Mr. Goble stated the Impact Fees should be tied to
the property; not the applicant. Chair Kirkmeyer stated the Board has to follow the State statute,
whether or not it makes common sense. Commissioner Conway stated there are options the Board
can exercise to address this issue; however, the larger issue with the State statute needs to be
addressed, and he will discuss the matter with his legislators. Mr. Goble stated he has spent some
time discussing this matter with Mr. Barker in the past. Commissioner Rademacher stated he is
comfortable with placing the instruction on the plat, which will disclose there is an outstanding debt to
whoever purchases the property. He stated there may never be a building on Lot B; therefore, he does
not think the Impact Fee should have to be paid at this time. Mr. Barker stated there is no mechanism
in the Weld County Code to defer the School District Impact Fees and to place the instruction for delay
of the collection of the Impact Fees on the plat; therefore, if the Board chooses to do that today, it
needs to add the option to the Code for other future applicants. He stated the Board does not consider
many of these requests, mainly because other applicants simply pay the Impact Fees, and the Board is
considering changing the process based on one (1) request. He stated there have been less than
Minutes, August 22, 2011 2011-2285
Page 4 BC0016
10 similar requests, and there have been hundreds of Recorded Exemptions processed. Chair
Kirkmeyer stated this is an isolated situation and common sense needs to prevail. She stated these
lots may never have a house on them and it does not make sense for the applicant to pay the fee for
those lots. Commissioner Conway stated the alternative is to waive the fee, which is not a good solution
since the lots may eventually have houses constructed on them. He indicated he would be in favor of
recording the information on the plat for potential buyers if there is a way to complete this.
Commissioner Garcia stated he concurs with the sentiments of the other Commissioners; however, he
is stuck on two (2) points. He stated there is the matter of fundamental fairness, and there was the
comment by the County Attorney indicating the Board does not have the authority to do what it is
discussing. Commissioner Rademacher inquired as to whether the School District Impact Fees are
reimbursed when applications for Use by Special Review (USR) Permits and Recorded Exemptions are
withdrawn. Mr. Baker indicated he is unsure; however, he does not believe the Impact Fees are
reimbursed. Ms. Martin stated there are no School District Impact Fees associated with USRs, except
in rare cases. Commissioner Conway inquired as to whether applicants are reimbursed in the rare
cases when they have paid School District Impact Fees with their USR Permit applications. Ms. Martin
stated those applicants had not satisfied any of the Conditions of Approval; therefore, the fees had not
been paid yet. Ms. Mika stated historically it has not been the Board's process to review whether a fee
has been paid or not; it has simply determined whether the school impacts were satisfied, and the
Board has adequately addressed that. She stated the situations where the Board has said that the
School District Impact Fees were not appropriate were concerning properties which are encumbered by
physical constraints. Chair Kirkmeyer stated the Condition of Approval just says the applicant will
address the requirements of the School District. Mr. Barker stated it sounds as though the School
District and the applicant have reached a verbal agreement. Chair Kirkmeyer stated the applicant
needs to put the agreement in writing. Mr. Barker stated submitting a written agreement may be a way
to resolve this matter for today, and the Board should address this matter in the Code, in order to make
the option available to everyone. Chair Kirkmeyer stated if an agreement is worked out and submitted
and the requirements are addressed within it, then the Condition of Approval has been met, and the
Board does not need to change the Code. Ms. Mika stated it varies how much each School District
charges for its Impact Fees, and in the past, the matter has been resolved with letters being submitted
indicating agreements have been reached. Commissioner Rademacher inquired as to whether the
appropriate motion would be to refer the matter back to staff. Mr. Barker stated Ms. Martin has
indicated she is comfortable with the matter being referred back to staff, and the Board can approve the
Recorded Exemption today with the Condition of Approval that a letter must be provided by the
applicant, and the Board can request an item be placed on the plat to notify any potential purchasers
about the School District Impact Fees. Ms. Martin stated Mr. Goble has indicated he may not be able
to reach an agreement with the School District regarding addressing the future impacts. Chair
Kirkmeyer stated the Condition of Approval simply states the applicant shall address the requirements;
they do not have to reach an agreement. Commissioner Long concurred with Chair Kirkmeyer, and he
stated the Board is not an enforcement mechanism or a collecting agency. He stated the Board just
determines whether the applicant is trying to address the Conditions of Approval, and whether it works
out or not is not under the Board's purview. He stated the Board has made sure discussions are taking
place between the applicant and the School District; therefore, it has met its burden. He stated the
applicant seems to be looking to the Board to bypass the requirement. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer,
Ms. Martin reiterated this application has been administratively approved by staff. Commissioner Long
stated he does not believe a motion is necessary, since the applicant has attempted to address the
Condition of Approval. Ms. Martin read an e-mail into the record from Mr. Goble, dated May 25, 2011,
to Mr. Meier and Susie Townsend, Superintendent, School District RE-3J, which indicates Mr. Goble is
writing in response to the referral from the School District and he proposes that no payment of
cash-in-lieu of land fees be required. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Barker stated the reason the
matter has come before the Board is to determine whether or not the Condition of Approval has been
met, and if the Board determines the Condition of Approval has been met, the proper motion will be to
approve the Recorded Exemption, with the finding the Condition of Approval has been met. He stated
Minutes, August 22, 2011 2011-2285
Page 5 BC0016
if the Board determines the Condition of Approval has not been met, it can refer the matter back to
staff. He stated the Board is considering the matter pursuant to Weld County Code procedures for
when an applicant believes they have met a Condition of Approval and staff does not. Commissioner
Long moved to approve Recorded Exemption #5089, with the determination that Condition of
Approval #4.6 has been met. Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Ms. Martin summarized the process up to now. She reiterated the other
Conditions of Approval have not been satisfied; however, this is the only one that the applicant has a
problem with. Chair Kirkmeyer suggested the appropriate motion should be to approve the Recorded
Exemption, with the Conditions of Approval, and to provide direction on Condition of Approval #4.B.
Commissioner Long moved to approve Recorded Exemption #5089, with the Conditions of Approval
and the direction that the Board would be satisfied with the items previously discussed to meet
Condition of Approval #4.B. Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion. Commissioner Conway
stated it seems there are several options which were discussed by the Board. Mr. Barker concurred.
Chair Kirkmeyer indicated there is only one option. Commissioner Long stated there are options and it
is up to the applicant to determine the mechanics to try to address the Condition of Approval. He stated
the applicant does not need to reach an agreement with the School District, and there may be more
options available to them than what were discussed today. Commissioner Garcia stated Condition of
Approval #4.6 has been met by the statements Ms. Martin read into the record, in the e-mail from
Mr. Goble to Ms. Townsend. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
FIRST READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2011-6, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 29 BUILDING REGULATIONS, OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE (CON'T FROM 07/25/11): Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services, stated it is
proposed that the last sentence be removed from Section 29-1-20, Definitions, which stated,
'Agriculture buildings are not exempt from Building Permits unless they meet the criteria in
Section 29-3-20.8.13 below." He stated it is being proposed that Section 29-2-70, National Electrical
Code, be amended to update the reference to the National Electrical Code from the 2008 Edition to the
2011 Edition, and that Section 29-3-20, Exemptions, be amended to remove the language from B.13
and B.13.a, and to renumber accordingly. He stated there are no changes from what was presented at
the work session, and Frank Piacentino, Department of Building Inspection, is available for questions.
In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Parko stated there were no additional changes being proposed as
a result of the Planning Commission. Chair Kirkmeyer provided the opportunity for public testimony;
however, none was given. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve Ordinance #2011-6 on first
reading. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
FIRST READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2011-9, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 23 ZONING, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE:
Mr. Parko stated the number of animal units in Section 23-1-90 will be updated, and Mr. Gathman will
explain the proposed changes in more detail. Mr. Gathman stated the animal units definition currently
allows for four (4) animal units per acre, which will remain the limit for properties less than 80 gross
acres in size; however, six (6) animal units per acre will be allowed for properties which are 80 to
320 acres in size, eight (8) animals units will be allowed per acre for properties which are 320 to
640 acres in size, and up to ten (10) animal units will be allowed per acre for properties which are
640 acres in size, or larger. He stated there are separate tables proposed for the A (Agricultural) and
A-1 (Concentrated Animal) Zone Districts, and a property must contain at least 160 acres to qualify for
the A-1 (Concentrated Animal) Zone District. Mr. Parko stated the next proposed change is to add a
definition of "Transloading" to Sections 23-1-90, 23-3-40.A.7, 23-3-310-6.11, 23-3-320.B11, and
23-3-330.B.12. He stated a definition for transloading became necessary as the result of the oil and
gas industry expressing interest in it, and transloading will be a Use by Right in the Industrial Zone
Districts, and it will require a Use by Special Review (USR) Permit in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Mr. Parko stated most of the transloading will consist of transporting products specifically from trucks to
railroad cars, and transloading may consist of either temporarily storing a product or simply transferring
Minutes, August 22, 2011 2011-2285
Page 6 BC0016
it from one mode of transportation to another. Mr. Gathman stated Section 23-2-150, Intent and
applicability, will simply add the A-1 (Concentrated Animal) Zone District as requiring a Site Plan
Review, and Section 23-2-160, Application requirements for site plan review, will add letter V to
address the submittal requirements in the A-1 (Concentrated Animal) Zone District. Mr. Parko stated
the next change is to add Section 23-3-30, Medical Marijuana, in order to address caregivers, since
State statute allows for a caregiver to grow and sell up to six (6) plants per patient, and to have a total
of five (5) patients, for a potential total of up to 30 plants. He stated the proposed language will limit the
growth and sale of marijuana per parcel, to prevent numerous caregivers from occupying multiple units
on one property. Mr. Gathman stated Section 23-3-50, Bulk requirements, will be amended to indicate
the number of animal units permitted per acre can be reference on the table found in Section 23-1-90,
and Section 23-3-60, A-1 (Concentrated Animal) Zone District, will be added to explain the intent of the
A-1 (Concentrated Animal) Zone District. Mr. Parko stated language stating that "USES similar to the
USES listed above, so long as the USE complies with the general intent of the A (Agricultural) Zone
District," will be added to Sections 23-3-210.H, 23-3-220.H, 23-3-230.H, 23-3-240.H, 23-3-310.H,
23-3-320.H, and 23-3-330.H, in order to provide more flexibility for the Commercial and Industrial Zone
Districts. He stated Section 23-3-30.6.12, Oil and Gas Support and Service, will be added to the Code,
and Section 23-4-120, Requirements for setback, offset, and clearance, will change the setback for
off-site directional signs in A (Agricultural) Zone District from 50 feet to 25 feet. Mr. Parko stated there
will be one more change proposed for the final reading of the Ordinance, which is regarding cargo
containers; however, it did not appear in the first reading because it still needs to be presented to
Planning Commission. He stated there will also be language proposed concerning grading permits for
future readings. Chair Kirkmeyer provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was
given. Commissioner Long moved to approve Ordinance #2011-9 on first reading. Commissioner
Conway seconded the motion. Commissioner Rademacher thanked staff for its work on this Ordinance
and he thanked the Dairy Farmers of America (DFA). Commissioner Conway also thanked staff and
the DFA. He stated staff has worked on this Ordinance since early in March, 2011, and numerous
meetings have been conducted regarding it. He commended Chair Kirkmeyer and Commissioner
Rademacher for attending numerous works sessions on the matter, and he stated the changes initiated
were based on information provided through the Economic Development Assessment process.
Commissioner Conway stated Weld County needs 56,000 more dairy cows in order to meet the area's
milk needs over the next five (5) years. Commissioner Long concurred with Commissioner Conway's
comments. Chair Kirkmeyer thanked staff and others who participated, particularly those who are from
the agricultural industry. She stated Weld County is the number one agricultural county in the State,
and it needs to focus on sustainability and providing future agricultural opportunities. There being no
further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
FIRST READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2011-10, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 8 PUBLIC WORKS, OF THE WELD COUNTY
CODE (TO BE CON'T TO 9/19/11): Chair Kirkmeyer provided the opportunity for public testimony;
however, none was given. Commissioner Conway moved to continue the first reading of
Ordinance #2011-10 until September 19, 2011, following review by the Planning Commission on
September 6, 2011. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. Ordinances#2011-6 and #2011-9 were approved on first reading.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
Minutes, August 22, 2011 2011-2285
Page 7 BC0016
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WE),.D COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST:�j
rbara Kirkmeyee,Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board
/ Sean P. Co Pro-Tem C /
BY: ty o. vCl /
Deputy ClCIS k to the Boa .I ♦ 6
�� Will' F. Garci
r
t
'v: David E. Long
®(�N / EXCUSED DATE OF APP VAL
Douglas Rademacher
Minutes, August 22, 2011 2011-2285
Page 8 BC0016
Hello