HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100655.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
MARCH 31, 2010
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 31, 2010, 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 Douglas Rademacher, Chair
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long
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 31, 2010, as printed. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: Commissioner Long moved to add New Items of Business
#2) Consider Application for Federal Assistance for Weld County Youth Conservation Corps,
AmeriCorps Program, and authorize electronic submittal, and #3) Consider Lease Agreement and
authorize Chair to sign - Intervention, dba Intervention Community Corrections Services.
Commissioner Conway seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
PUBLIC INPUT: Doug Meyer, resident of the City of Greeley, stated he is present to address a
proposed Resolution regarding the Board exerting its legal authority for coordination, which he has
previously spoken to the Board about. Mr. Meyer read a piece of electronic mail (e-mail) from Margaret
Byfield to Chuck Miller into the record, stating "As to your resolution, the main purpose for these
resolutions generally is to establish the will of your board. In other words, it sets forth the policy of your
board as to coordination. It expresses that this is the will of the whole body, as opposed to one
Commissioner acting alone. Once passed, it can be attached to the first letters to the agencies in order
to send the message that this is the will of the Commissioners and that the Commissioners fully
understand coordination. This is one reason Fred Grant encourages each county to develop its own
resolution and plan, and not use a boilerplate version. The agencies will first test whether your
Commissioners really understand the agencies obligation. If they recognize out of the box that this
resolution has been developed locally, so the people on the ground must understand this, then it just
helps you get over that hurdle. This does not mean they will not challenge your Commissioners
understanding face to face, but will help to get them to the table. The passage of the resolution does
not change the agencies obligation, as they are required to coordinate with or without this. But it does
Minutes, March 31, 2010 2010-0655
Page 1 rAD BC0016
provide the authority for your Commissioners to pursue coordination. Even though it can be changed
later, it also establishes a policy that hopefully will continue even with the change of Commissioners in
later years." He also read an email from Fred Grant to Chuck Miller and Margaret Byfield into the
record, which stated, "Just one further comment with regard to the reason for a resolution: Margaret
has referred to the institutional memorialization aspect of the resolution which is very important. Keep
in mind always that when the irrigation water was turned off in Klamath Basin, the four (4) counties
surrounding the reservoir all had 'plans'sitting on their shelves that could have caused the Secretary of
Interior to come to the table and perhaps avoid turning off the water under her obligation to coordinate
to consistency. None of the counties invoked their plans, and at least three (3) of them did not realize
they even had the plans or what good the plans would be. A resolution states the affirmative and
positive intent of the Commissioners to enforce the coordination authority, not just call the attention of
the feds to the plan'. It is the legal document of coordination, not just the planning document, which
states policy that can and should be amended every so often. The legal document is the document that
a clerk should remember because it is part of the official minutes and legal documents for the county
while the 'plan' is not. And, 1712 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) gives
special standing to those counties engaged in the land use planning 'process'. The 'plan' is the plan,
but the resolution is the document of 'process', the document by which your Commissioners implement
the 'process'which calls 1712 into play. Also, keep in mind that the constitutional basis for coordination
concepts, and for why Congress mandates such, is the Tenth Amendment. So, always we should have
something in resolutions referring to the police power (which includes public health, safety, and
welfare). Safety will be the key to law enforcement coordination, recreation, and access issues."
Mr. Meyer stated the eighth paragraph on the first page of the proposed Resolution should be moved to
the fourth page, in between the first and second paragraphs. (Clerk's Note: Mr. Meyer's proposed
Resolution, marked Exhibit A, was submitted after Public Input concluded, along with a copy of the
complete related e-mail correspondence among Ms. Byfield, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Grant, marked
Exhibit B.)
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
BIDS:
CONDUCT ORAL AUCTION FOR OIL AND GAS LEASE - S1/2N/1/2, SW1/4, SW1/4SE1/4, S25,
T10N, R61 W: Barb Connolly, Controller, stated Hannon and Associates submitted a bid in the amount
of $271.00 per net mineral acre, J.L. Obourn, Jr. and Company submitted a bid in the amount of
$105.00 per net mineral acre, DJ Resource Holding submitted a bid in the amount of $102.00 per net
mineral acre, and Ed Orr submitted a bid in the amount of $100.00 per net mineral acre. Ms. Connolly
stated that according to the Weld County Code, the two highest bidders, and any bidders within ten (10)
percent of the highest bid, may participate in the oral auction. She stated none of the bids were within
ten (10) percent of the high bid; therefore, just the two highest bidders will be allowed to participate in
the oral auction. With the two (2) highest bidders participating in the auction, Hannon and Associates
raised its amount to $305.00 per net mineral acre, at which time J.L. Obourn, Jr. and Company
declined to bid. Commissioner Long moved to approve the high bid in the amount of $305.00 per net
mineral acre, for a total sum of $109,800.00, and authorize the Chair to sign said lease. Commissioner
Conway seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Minutes, March 31, 2010 2010-0655
Page 2 BC0016
APPROVE BID #61000067, HVAC CONTROLS UPDATE FOR VARIOUS BUILDINGS -
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS: Monica Mika, Director of Finance and
Administration, stated said bid was presented on March 10, 2010, and it was scheduled for approval on
March 24, 2010, at which time a continuance was requested by staff and granted by the Board, due to
some confusion regarding the bid from Johnson's Controls. Ms. Mika stated this project is being
funded by an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant, and to meet the grant
requirements, 40 percent energy reduction must be achieved. She stated the low bidder, Frontier
Mechanical, Inc., indicated its system will achieve an energy savings of 5 to 15 percent, and the second
lowest bidder, Johnson Controls, indicated its system will achieve up to 50 percent energy savings;
therefore, the second lowest bid from Johnson Controls is recommended, in the amount of $89,000.00.
She further stated the County currently has equipment from Johnson's Controls and one other vendor;
therefore, approving the bid from Johnson Controls will also prevent equipment from a third company
and a new type of system from being acquired. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Mika stated the
vendor will assist with tracking and documenting the energy reduction. Chair Rademacher stated he is
concerned as to whether 50 percent energy reduction is achievable.
Toby Taylor, Department of Buildings and Grounds, stated he was also concerned when Johnson's
Controls boasted up to 50 percent energy savings, and the standard in the industry is typically
approximately 20 percent energy savings; however, data has been provided to prove that if the County
adheres to the full setbacks and all of the proposed components, up to 50 percent energy reduction can
be achieved. Mr. Taylor stated he believes a 40 percent reduction is the maximum amount possible,
based on the online research he conducted, and it will only be possible if temperatures are adjusted
outside of business hours, which reduces approximately two (2) percent of the energy consumption per
degree. Chair Rademacher inquired as to what happens if Johnson Control is not able to generate
50 percent energy savings. Mr. Taylor stated there are not any stipulations in the agreement which
address that possibility. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Taylor stated at 40 percent energy
reduction, energy costs will be reduced by approximately $30,000.00 for three (3) buildings over a
one (1) year period. Chair Rademacher stated he is still concerned about not specifying any amount of
guaranteed energy savings. Mr. Taylor stated a minimum amount could be added as a stipulation in
the agreement. In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Taylor stated the expected life of the system
is approximately 15 to 20 years, and the automated technology frequently changes. Commissioner
Conway stated he shares Chair Rademacher's concern; the vendor states it will provide up to
50 percent energy savings; however, there is no minimum required. He stated the decision to select
this vendor is being based on the projected cost reduction, and there is nothing guaranteeing the
vendor will provide a higher cost reduction than the competitors. In response to Commissioner
Conway, Ms. Mika confirmed the grant requirement is 40 percent energy savings. Commissioner
Conway stated a minimum of 40 percent cost savings should be specified in the agreement, since it is a
requirement of the grant and some guarantee is needed. Mr. Taylor stated it should not be difficult to
achieve 40 percent energy savings if the County complies with all the rules, including the hours of
operation, since the cost savings will be reduced if the system is utilized for extended hours. He stated
since the cost savings can vary greatly according to the County's operational needs, the agreement will
need to specify the buildings will open and close at specific times, if the agreement is going to specify a
certain amount of guaranteed cost savings. Commissioner Conway stated Johnson Controls probably
accounted for those aberrations in its models and formulas, and he suggested the agreement could
guarantee 25 percent energy savings, which is significantly below the grant requirement. In response
to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Mika stated Johnson Controls is the only one of the three (3) vendors that
submitted a bid which will meet the grant requirement. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Taylor stated models were not provided from the vendors; however, case studies of previous
projects were provided, and the only vendor that provided a case study indicating it could achieve
40 percent energy savings is Johnson Controls. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the case studies need
to be included in the grant materials and the agreement with the vendor; therefore, there is proof the
Minutes, March 31, 2010 2010-0655
Page 3 BC0016
vendor provided a case study to prove it is capable of meeting the 40 percent energy savings
requirement. Commissioner Conway concurred with Ms. Mika that Johnson Controls is the only vendor
meeting the criteria for the grant; therefore, it should be awarded the bid. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the County needs to demonstrate it is attempting to
meet the 40 percent energy savings, and there should not be a minimum amount of cost savings
specified in the agreement with the vendor because it may affect the County's reimbursement. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Taylor confirmed staff has the documentation to demonstrate it
has entered into the agreement in good faith. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said bid from
Johnson Controls, in the amount of $89,000.00, as recommended by staff. Seconded by
Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously. (Clerk's Note: This matter was discussed after
New Business, due to copies of the bid documents being obtained for the Board's review.)
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER ESTABLISHING VOTE CENTERS FOR 2010 PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS:
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated the list of vote centers which was reviewed at a work session is
attached, marked Exhibit A; however, Steve Moreno, Clerk and Recorder, indicated he was going to
also submit a map, and the map has not been received. Mr. Barker stated the Board may continue the
matter, in order to wait to obtain the map of the vote centers, or the Board may approve the item based
on the list. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve the Resolution establishing the vote centers for
the 2010 Primary and General Elections. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR WELD COUNTY
YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS, AMERICORPS PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZE ELECTRONIC
SUBMITTAL: Judy Griego, Director, Department of Human Services, stated this application is for an
electronic grant (e-grant), it was reviewed at a work session conducted yesterday, and the grant will
include up to 15 members in the Youth Conservation Corps. Ms. Griego stated the total amount of the
grant will be approximately $343,552.00, with $186,980.00 in Federal funds and a County cash match
in the amount of $156,569.00. She stated this is a continuation grant through October 4, 2011, to
continue the operation of the AmeriCorps Program, which serves at-risk youth. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer moved to approve said application and authorize its electronic submittal. Commissioner
Garcia seconded the motion. Commissioner Conway stated the projects were discussed in length at
the work session yesterday. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the projects will be within Weld County,
working with the U.S. Forest Service and the Colorado Office of Emergency Management.
Commissioner Conway stated it is important to demonstrate that any projects which occur outside of
Weld County are beneficial to the citizenry of Weld County. There being no further discussion, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER LEASE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - INTERVENTION, DBA
INTERVENTION COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS SERVICES: Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated
the Board reviewed this lease agreement approximately one (1) week ago, it has been modified to
include the changes requested by the Board, and an item where he modified the language regarding
indemnification, to ensure it is equal between the two (2) parties. Mr. Barker stated Exhibit A of the
agreement includes a list of the furnishings and the equipment which will be provided by Weld County
as a part of the lease. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said lease agreement and authorize
the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING:
CONSIDER VACATION OF USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #1574 - ROBERT AND LAURA
BASS: Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, stated staff received a letter from Robert Bass,
property owner, requesting that Use by Special Review (USR) Permit #1574 be vacated. Mr. Ogle
stated the property was purchased by Mr. Bass from Reverend Jackson Sherwood, who elected not to
Minutes, March 31, 2010 2010-0655
Page 4 BC0016
•
WELD COUNTY RESOLUTION
NUMBER 2009 BCC
RESOLUTION ASSERTING LEGAL STANDING AND FORMALLY
REQUESTING COORDINATION WITH ALL FEDERAL AND STATE
AGENCIES MAINTAINING JURISDICTION OVER LANDS AND/OR
RESOURCES LOCATED WITHIN WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Weld County is a home rule charter county, a public unit of local
government, and a 5-member elected Board of County Commissioners
serves as its chief governing authority; and
WHEREAS, Weld County Board of County Commissioners ("WCBCC") is charged
with supervising and protecting the tax base of the county and establishing
comprehensive land use plans (including, but not limited to, the
Comprehensive Plan) outlining present and future authorized uses for all
lands and resources situated within the county; and
WHEREAS, Weld County is engaged in the land use planning process for future land
uses to serve the public safety, health and welfare of all the citizens of
Weld County; and
WHEREAS, Weld County is comprised of primarily privately-held lands with the
balance of lands and/or resources publicly owned, managed, and/or
regulated by various federal and state agencies; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Weld County historically earn their livelihood from
activities reliant upon natural resources and land which produces natural
resources is critical to the economy of Weld County; and
WHEREAS, the economic base and stability of Weld County is largely dependent upon
commercial and business activities operated on federally and state owned,
managed, and/or regulated lands that include,but are not limited to,
recreation, tourism, mining, livestock grazing, and other commercial
pursuits; and
WHEREAS, Weld County desires to assure that federal and state agencies shall inform
the WCBCC of all pending or proposed actions affecting local
communities and citizens within Weld County and coordinate with the
WCBCC in the planning and implementation of those actions; and
WHEREAS, the executive agencies charged with implementing Congressional
management of the federal lands operate under presidential Executive
Orders, administrative regulations and policies which require coordination
with entities of local government as to the subjects of all statutes
EXHIBIT
u6/'e /Apv*-
previously set forth as well as outdoor recreation, public access, and all
other multiple uses of the lands; and
WHEREAS, coordination of planning and management actions is mandated by federal
laws governing land management, including the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act ("FLPMA"), 43 U.S. § 1701 et seq. Specifically at 43
U.S.C. § 1712, regarding the coordinating status of a county engaging in
the land use planning process, FLPMA requires that the"Secretary of the
Interior ("Secretary") shall . . . . coordinate the land use inventory,
planning, and management activities . . . with the land use planning, and
management programs of other federal departments and agencies and of
the state and local governments within which the lands are located"; and
WHEREAS, the coordination requirements of Section 1712 of FLPMA provide for
special involvement by government officials who are engaged in the land
use planning process; and
WHEREAS, FLPMA section 1712 sets forth the nature of the coordination required
with planning efforts by government officials and subsection (f) of 43
U.S.C. § 1712 sets forth an additional requirement that the Secretary "shall
allow an opportunity for public involvement" (including local government
without limiting the coordination requirement of 43 U.S.C. § 1712
allowing land or resource management or regulatory agencies to simply
lump local government in with special interest groups of citizens or
members of the public in general); and
WHEREAS, FLPMA, at section 1712, also provides that the"Secretary shall . . . assist
in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between federal and
non-federal government plans" and gives preference to those counties
which are engaging in the planning process over the general public,
special interest groups of citizens, and even counties not engaging in a
land use planning program; and
WHEREAS, the requirement that the Secretary "coordinate" land use inventory,
planning, and management activities with local governments, requires
assistance in resolving inconsistencies to mean that the resolution process
takes place at the beginning of the planning cycle and during the planning
cycle instead of at the end of the planning cycle when the draft federal
plan or proposed action is released for public review; and
WHEREAS, FLPLA section 1712 further requires that the "Secretary shall . . . provide
for meaningful public involvement of state and local government officials
. in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, and
land use decisions for public lands"; and, when read in light of the
"coordinate" requirement of 43 U.S.C. § 1712, reasonably contemplates
"meaningful involvement" as referring to on-going consultations and
involvement throughout the planning cycle, not merely at the end of the
planning cycle; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), charged with
administration and implementation of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1976 ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., has issued regulations
which require that federal agencies consider the economic impact of their
actions and plans on local government such as Weld County, Colorado;
and
WHEREAS, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on
the customs of the people as shown by their beliefs, social forms, and
"material traits", it reasonably follows that NEPA requires federal
agencies to consider the impact of their actions on the rural, land,
agricultural, and resource-oriented citizens of Weld County, Colorado who
depend on the "material traits" of Weld County, including agricultural
production, agriculturally-related industry, animal husbandry, livestock
grazing, recreation, tourism, hunting, mining, and other commercial
pursuits for their economic livelihoods (all of which are critically
dependent on access to sufficient water and rights to sufficient water); and
WHEREAS, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on
the customs, beliefs, and social forms, as well as the"material traits" of
the people; and
WHEREAS, it is reasonable to interpret NEPA as requiring federal agencies to consider
the impacts of their actions on those traditional and historical and
economic practices, including commercial and business activities, which
are performed or operated on federally and state-managed lands (including
but not limited to agricultural production, agriculturally-related industry,
animal husbandry, livestock grazing, recreation, tourism, hunting, mining,
and other commercial pursuits—all of which are critically dependent on
access to water and rights to water); and
WHEREAS, NEPA, at 42 U.S.C. § 4331,places upon federal agencies the "continuing
responsibility . . . to use all practicable means, consistent with other
considerations of national policy to . . . preserve important historic,
cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage"; and
WHEREAS Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1975, at page 277) defines
"culture" as "customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a
group; the integrated pattern of human behavior passed to succeeding
generations"; and
WHEREAS the National Forest Management Act of 1976 ("NFMA"), 16 U.S.C. §
1600 et seq., requires the United State Forest Service to coordinate its
planning processes with local government units such as Weld County,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, federal agencies implementing the Endangered Species Act of 1973
("ESA") (7 U.S.C. § 136; 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.); the Federal Water
Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (popularly known as the Clean
Water Act("CWA") (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.); the Clean Air Act
("CAA") (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.); the Wild and Scenic River Act of
1968 ("WSRA") (16 U.S.C. § 1271 et seq.); the Soil and Water Resources
Conservation Act of 1977 ("SWRCA") (16 U.S.C. §§ 2001 —2009); the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 ("HSA") (Public Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C.
§ 101 et seq.) are required by Congress to consider local plans and to
coordinate and cooperate directly with plans of local government such as
Weld County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the customs, traditions, and commercial and recreational uses of the lands
in Weld County have recognized and remained reliant on public access,
including but not limited to, the grants of rights of way under Revised
Statute 2477, and other public access guaranteed by Colorado state laws,
as well as administrative regulations and policies and federal and state
court decisions which provide for access to and through federal and state
lands to, and for the use of, water and points within and beyond federal
and state land boundaries, and protection of such access is subject to the
requirement of coordination; and
WHEREAS, the coordinating provisions referred to in the resolution require the
Secretary of Interior to work directly with local government to resolve
water resource issues and with regard to recreation uses of the federal
lands; and
WHEREAS, the regulations issued by the federal agencies in this resolution are
consistent with statutory requirements of coordination and direct
cooperation and provide implementation processes for such coordination
and direct consideration and communication; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Constitution has recognized Weld County's authority to
exercise its local, police, and sanitary powers, and the Colorado legislature
has recognized and mandated exercise of certain of those powers in
specific statutes; and
WHEREAS the Colorado legislature has stated that "[e]ach local government within its
respective subdivision has the authority to plan for and regulate the use of
land by . . . regulating the use of land on the basis of the impact thereof on
the community or surrounding areas . . . (and) planning for and regulating
the use of land so as to provide planned and orderly use of land and
protection of the environment in a manner consistent with constitutional
rights." C.R.S. § 29-20-104(1)(g) and (h); and
WHEREAS, the Colorado legislature specifically authorizes counties (and
municipalities)to designate certain areas and activities of"state interest"
and regulate them. The Areas and Activities of State Interest Act (C.R.S.
§ 24-65.1.101 et seq., commonly referred to as "1041 powers") authorizes
counties to designate certain areas of state interest from among four (4)
specific categories: (a) Mineral resource areas; (b) Natural hazard areas;
(c) Areas containing or having a significant impact upon historical,
natural, or archaeological resources of statewide importance; and (d)
Areas around key facilities in which development may have a material
effect upon the key facility or the surrounding community; and
WHEREAS, the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act also authorizes counties to
designate certain activities of state interest from among nine (9) specific
categories: (a) Site selection and construction of major new domestic
water and sewage treatment systems and major extension of existing
domestic water and sewage treatment systems; (b) Site selection and
development of solid waste disposal sites (with certain exceptions); (c)
Site selection of airports; (d) Site selection of rapid or mass transit
terminals, stations, or fixed guideways; (e) Site selection of arterial
highways and interchanges and collector highways; (f) Site selection and
construction of major facilities of a public utility; (g) Site selection and
development of new communities; (h) Efficient utilization of municipal
and industrial water projects; and (i) Conduct of nuclear detonations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-11-1010), each organized county within the state
shall be a body corporate and politic and as such is empowered with
numerous powers and purposes, including but not limited to: "(k) To
coordinate, pursuant to 43 U.S.C. section 1712, the "National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969", 42 U.S.C. section 4321 et seq., 40
U.S.C. section 3312, 16 U.S.C. section 530, 16 U.S.C. section 1604, and
40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508, with the United States secretary of the interior
and the United States secretary of agriculture to develop land management
plans that address hazardous fuel removal and other forest management
practices, water development and conservation measures, watershed
protection, the protection of air quality, public utilities protection, and
private property protection on federal lands within such county's
jurisdiction"; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-11-101(2), "Counties have the authority to adopt
and enforce ordinances and resolutions regarding health, safety, and
welfare issues as otherwise prescribed by law"; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. § 30-11-107(1), "The board of county commissioners
of each county has power at any meeting: (a) To make such orders
concerning the property belonging to the county as it deems expedient; . .
(bb) To provide for the preservation of the cultural, historic, and
architectural history within the county by ordinance or resolution"; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO:
That the Weld County Board of County Commissioners does hereby assert legal
standing and formally invokes coordination status with all federal and state
agencies maintaining jurisdiction of lands and/or resources located within Weld
County, Colorado and to all federal and state elected representatives serving Weld
County, Colorado.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board shall cause a copy of this
Resolution to be transmitted to local, regional, state, and national offices of all federal
and state agencies maintaining jurisdiction of lands and/or resources located within Weld
County, Colorado and to all federal and state elected representatives serving Weld
County, Colorado.
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO on , 2009.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
William F. Garcia, Chairman
Douglas Rademacher, Pro-Tern
Sean P. Conway
Barbara Kirkmeyer
David E. Long
ATTEST:
Esther Gesick, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, Colorado
[ SEAL ]
F-N: Ccardination Resolution - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of
y13oor, MA,IL
Classic
Fw: Coordination Resolution Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:37 AM
From: "Mick Mizner" <mcmiz@wildblue.net>
To: lazyvo@yahoo.com
RESOLUTIONCoordination01 13 2009 Morgan County.docx (2OKB)
Margaret called to get an update on the progress of our County Commissioners with Corrdination. Fred and Margaret both
recommended we send this resolution to Weld County Council to include him first and to see if Bruce would be in favor of such
a document. It will help unify that all Commissioner are in favor of Corrdination and that they understand the value of such a
local governmental tool. More education will still be needed for Weld County but each piece of information will help our cause.-
---Original Message----
From: Margaret Byfield
To: Mick Mizner
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:22 PM
Subject: FW: Coordination Resolution
Hi Mick,
I'm attaching the original resolution that Morgan County forwarded to us to review. We made some comments to this
resolution, which are contained in the messages below. Sorry I don't have the completed resolution here on my computer,
but hopefully you will be able to piece all this together for your purposes.
Good to visit with you yesterday.
Thanks,
Margaret
From: FRED KELLY GRANT [mailto:fredkellygrant@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 5:30 PM
To: Margaret Byfield; Chuck Miller
Cc: dbliberty@aol.com
Subject: RE: Coordination Resolution
Chuck, As I am readying some letters for another state, I again came across the series of emails re your
resolution. Margaret's advice is right on.
Just one further comment with regard to the reason for a resolution:
Margaret has referred to the institutional memorialization aspect of the resolution which is very important.
Keep in mind always that when the irrigation water was turned off in Klamath Basin, the 4 counties
surrounding the reservoir all had "plans" sitting on their shelves that could have caused the secretary of
interior to come to the table and perhaps avoid turning off tghe water under her obligation to coordinate to
consistency. None of the counties invoked their plans, and at least 3 of them did not realize they even had the
plans or what good the plans would be.
A resolution states the affrirmative and positive intent of the commissioners to enforce the coordination
authority, not just call the attention of the feds to the "plan". It is the LEGAL DOCUMENT of coordination, not
just the planning document which states policy that can and should be amended every so often. The LEGAL
DOCUMENT is the document that a clerk should remember because it is part of the official minutes and legal
documents of the county while the "plan" is not.
EXHIBIT
3
http://us.mc631.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?fid=Inbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid pv2S/C /ft vi
5m: Cr.ardination Resolution- Yahoo! Mail Page 2 of
And, 1712 of flpma gives special standing to those counties engaged in the land use planning "process" (see
your Whereas clause number 10)---the "plan" is the "plan", the Resolution is the document of "process", the
document by which your commissioners implement the "process" which calls 1712 into play.
Suggested changes:
1. Third Whereas paragraph: Also, keep in mind that the constitutional basis for coordination concepts, and
for why Congress mandates such, is the Tenth Amendment. So, always we should have something in
resolutions referring to the police power (which includes public, health, safety and welfare). Some of the older
ones do not specifically set forth the safety angles, but more recent ones should. IN the older cases,
somewhere in the specific natural resources plan there are law enforcment provisons which make up the
deficit.
So, I would change this paragraph to read at the end "to serve the public safety, health and welfare of
all the citizens of Morgan County" "Safety" will be the key to law enforcement coordiantion and rec and
accessissues.
(DAvid has captured the safety in the provison as to the Colorado constitution; he has done a very good job.)
2. 'As to outdoor rec, the way we manage aruond the repeal of the act, is the regs and exec orders: so, add
a Whereas clause after the one listing the statutes:
WHEREAS, the executive agencies charged with implementing Congressional management of the
federal lands operate under presidential Executive Orders, administrative regulations and policies which require
coordination with entities of local government as to the subjects of all statutes previously set forth as well as ,
outdoor recreation, public access, and all other multiple uses of the lands
(This then fits right in front of the wheras referring to sec of interior's duty)
3. Becasue of the importance of access to water and water rights which you are going to be relying on with re
the well fights which we hope we can get you into, I think I would put a specific clause in re RS 2477 (which
we may be able to work into a well fight case---how I'm not sure, but creatively, if we have it in here, will
help) and access:
WHEREAS, the customs, traditions, and commercial and recreational uses of the lands in Morgan
County have recognized and remained reliant on public access, including but not limited to, the grants of rights
of way under Revised Statute 2477, and other public access guaranteed by Colorado state laws, as well as
administrative regulations and policies and federal and state court decisions which provide for access to and
through federal and state lands to, and for the use of, water and points within and beyond federal and state
land boundaries, and protection of such access is subject to the requirement of coordination
Finally, I would only change the word "requests" in the therefore clause to read "invokes" or "expects" I like
either better than "demands" but should be more than "requests" Early resoloutions used "requests" but I
regret that fact.
David has done an admirable job on the resolution. I recerived a letter from your pa which was very
demeaning, very sarcastic and self serving as though he was under attack, and offering to debate me as to the
meaning of coordination, and frankly I didn't want to even get involved in such a discussion, having started
with such a negative introduction as he gave. Referred to himself as in the nature of "country" lawyer, but
then gave his credentials as having participated in this kind of cdase and that kind of case. Really just not a
fight I wanted in on.
fred
http://us.mc631.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?fid=Inbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&.ran... 3/18/200'
Fw: Coordination Resolution - Yahoo! Mail Page 3 of
From: margaret@stewards.us
To: cmiller@ama-auctions.com
CC: dbliberty@aol.com; fredkellygrant@msn.com
Subject: RE: Coordination Resolution
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:15:49 -0600
Hi Chuck,
As to the Kansas trip, it may be postponed. Logan County was in a lawsuit prior to our involvement that they may need to
deal with before this next coordination meeting with the USF&W. I should know more after a call this afternoon as to
whether we are headed to Kansas on the 12th or not. I'll keep you posted.
As to your resolution,the main purpose for these resolutions generally is to establish the will of your Board. In other words, i
sets forth the policy of your board as to coordination. It expresses that this is the will of the whole body as opposed to one
Commissioner acting alone. Once passed,it can be attached to the first letters to the agencies in order to send the message
that this is the will of the Commissioners and that the Commissioners fully understand coordination. This is one reason Fred
encourages each county to develop their own resolution and plan, and not use a boilerplate version. The agencies will first
test whether your Commissioners really understand the agencies obligation. If they recognize out of the box that this
resolution has been developed locally, so the people on the ground must understand this,then it just helps you get over that
hurdle. Doesn't mean they won't challenge your Commissioners understanding face to face, but will help to get them to the
table.
The passage of the resolution does not change the agencies obligation, as they are required to coordinate with or without
this. But it does provide the authority for your Commissioners to pursue coordination. Even though it can be changed later, i
also establishes a policy that hopefully will continue even with the change of Commissioners in later years.
For when you get to the point of forming the committees, I've attached the Owyhee County Ordinance forming their land use
committee adopted by their Commissioners. I don't remember whether this was in the workbook or not. If not,you now
have it. This will give you some ideas of structure and purpose for your committee.
Keep us posted.
Thanks,
Margaret
From: Chuck Miller [mailto:cmiller@ama-auctions.com]
Sent: Monday,January 26, 2009 7:09 PM
To: margaret@stewards.us
Subject: RE: Coordination Resolution
Thank You for responding so quickly. I have passed on your thoughts and comments which are much appreciated and we will
be removing that. The question I have about a resolution is exactly what it would be used for in a County situation like ours
http://us.mc631.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?fid=Inbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&.ran... 3/18/20
Coordination Resolution - Yahoo! Mail Page 4 of
when we have Coordination in our Comprehensive Land Use Plan that was just adopted,we are going to form an advisory
committee and numerous sub committees for all of the interests and then develop a Coordination plan once we educate the
people in the county to support all of this. In reviewing the resolutions in the book it appears to me that this is what fit the
areas where they developed them and they are different than what we are going to do. I plan on reviewing them again tonight
and trying to figure out what my thought process is. If you have comments on this please let me know.
Do you know yet how your trip to Kansas is going to work out. Please let me know when you get arrangements made so I can
keep my calendar clear. Thanks again for all your help and hope that we are not to big of a bother. Thanks Chuck
Original Message
From: Margaret Byfield [mailto:margaret@stewards.us]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:21 AM
To: 'Chuck Miller'; 'Fred Kelly Grant'
Cc: Dan Byfield
Subject: RE: Coordination Resolution
Hi Chuck,
This is a very good resolution from my perspective. Fred may have more detailed comments on it, but I think it covers
the issues well and would serve the county well.There is one item that I suggest you change, however. One of the
citations in the lists of federal laws calling for coordination, needs to be removed. This is on my printed copy page 4.
The "Outdoor Recreation Coordination Act of 1963" (16USC 460)was either repealed or moved to a different section of
the statute. At the time that Owyhee County first did the initial research on coordination, it was in the statute at this
citation. I've looked through title 16 and have not found where it may have been moved to. I think if memory serves,
at one time I found it had been repealed. But at any rate for now I would suggest taking that law out of the resolution.
http://us.mc631.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?fid=Inbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&.ran... 3/18/200'
proceed with developing a church on the property after obtaining USR #1574. Commissioner Garcia
moved to approve the vacation of Use by Special Review (USR) Permit #1574. Seconded by
Commissioner Conway, 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.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 9:42 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
/ E La WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: y ;` >
�>> t C ti�P Do a ademach r, C air
Weld County Clerk to the Board ,
"` . Barbara Kirkmeyer; ro-Tem
BY: 0.4
e y Clerk he oard V -
ean o a
m . arcia
E
David E. Long
Minutes, March 31, 2010 2010-0655
Page 5 BC0016
Hello