HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101492.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JULY 12, 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, July 12, 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 (9:00 a.m., to 11:50 a.m.)
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick (1:05 p.m., to 4:20 p.m.)
Director of Finance and Administration, Monica Mika
MINUTES: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of July 7, 2010, as printed. Commissioner Long seconded the motion, and it
carried unanimously.
READ ORDINANCE BY TAPE: Commissioner Long moved to read Code Ordinance #2010-1 by tape.
Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: No public input was given.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Long seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
OLD BUSINESS:
CONSIDER SATELLITE SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR IRIDIUM PHONE AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIR TO SIGN - SATELLITEPHONESTORE.COM (CON'T FROM 06/28/10): Roy Rudisill, Office of
Emergency Management, stated he has researched the answers to the questions the Board had at the
previous meeting. He indicated he had mistakenly stated there were other entities within Weld County
which possess satellite phones; however, he was incorrect. He clarified the City of Greeley owns
satellite phones; however, it has not renewed its service contracts, and the phone system in the
Sheriff's Office Command Bus has a contract with Verizon Wireless; therefore, a disaster may interfere
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
a�'�� Page1 BC0016
with its communication. Mr. Rudisill stated he also conducted some cost comparison between
SatellitePhoneStore.com and other satellite service providers, and he determined
SatellitePhoneStore.com is the least expensive. He stated he also determined there is cost savings
associated with selecting an annual contract, as opposed to a monthly contract, and he contacted
SatellitePhoneStore.com about the County's unused minutes and it reinstated the County's phones for
an additional 80 days; therefore, the proposed contract will not take effect until the middle of
September, 2010. Commissioner Conway thanked Mr. Rudisill for his work on researching this matter.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Rudisill stated the term of the contract will be one (1)
year. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to why the Resolution was drafted to allow the Sheriff to
sign the contract, as opposed to the Chair. Mr. Rudisill stated since this will be an ongoing contract, the
Sheriff could be authorized to sign renewals, or the Chair can sign the contracts. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated the contract will need to be considered by the Board each year whether the Chair or
the Sheriff is the signing authority. Chair Rademacher indicated he would prefer to be the individual
designated to sign the contract. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said agreement and
authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER RECOGNITION OF ARTWORK FOR WELD COUNTY MEDICAL CLINIC (KIDS ART DAY
- JULY 12, 2010): Monica Mika, Director of Finance and Administration, thanked Topaz Martinez,
Edna Mata, and Tasia Mangrum, all employees in Printing and Supply, for their hard work framing the
selected artwork. Ms. Mika read the names of the children who had artwork selected into the record.
She stated most of the artwork focuses on wellness themes ranging from eating well to wearing bike
helmets. Commissioner Long stated the children will know their artwork is on display in the Weld
County Medical Clinic and making people feel better. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said
Recognition of Artwork for the Weld County Medical Clinic. Commissioner Long seconded the motion.
Commissioner Conway stated all of the art is fantastic and he is looking forward to the walls at the Weld
County Medical Clinic being filled with it. Commissioner Garcia stated the artwork will add a homey
touch to the Weld County Medical Clinic. There being no further discussion, the motion carried
unanimously.
RECONSIDER TASK ORDER CONTRACT FOR FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM: Dr. Mark
Wallace, M.D., stated a work session was conducted on this matter following the Board's action
regarding the Task Order Contract for the Family Planning Program, and he does not have new
information to present from what the Board considered at its work session. Commissioner Garcia
stated he researched Plan B and he found a study which was presented at the Society for the
Advancement of Contraception Conference, which indicated there is proof of ovulation after taking the
Plan B pill, based on ultrasounds and hormonal indicators, which occurred in 4.7 percent of the cycles
studied. He stated he also read an article from the Medical Tribune News Service which indicated the
morning after pill will inhibit a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus, and a similar statement
from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dr. Wallace stated the research
Commissioner Garcia cited is consistent with the information he presented to the Board at its work
session. He clarified he has explained to the Board the ways Plan B performs as a contraceptive, and
Plan B is identified as a contraceptive by the Food and Drug Administration; it is not identified as an
abortive agent. He stated he has also indicated to the Board that pregnancies may occur after
utilization of this medication due to a failure to suppress ovulation. Chair Rademacher stated he is
disappointed Dr. Wallace submitted the contract without amending the language or conferring with him.
Dr. Wallace stated the language in the Scope of Work simply states the Department will follow broad
guidelines; however, the Department has been operating under the direction of the Board's Resolution.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Dr. Wallace stated the contract was submitted in its entirety
because there was no obvious place to insert the restriction that the Board directed; however, staff has
followed the Board's direction since July 1, 2010, when the new contract became effective. Chair
Rademacher stated he would have preferred if Dr. Wallace had addressed the matter with the Board
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 2 BC0016
prior to June 30, 2010. Mr. Barker stated that Dr. Wallace brought the matter to his attention prior to
June 30, 2010; however, it was not placed on the agenda earlier in order to allow adequate time for the
work session to be conducted. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve said task order contract.
Commissioner Long seconded the motion. Commissioner Garcia stated it is against Federal and State
laws to provide funding for abortion. He thanked Dr. Wallace for assisting with educating him on this
topic. Chair Rademacher inquired as to what the consequences of not approving the task order
contract will be. Dr. Wallace stated Title 10 expects grantees to provide a full spectrum of
contraceptive options, and the County could be in violation of Title 10 if it refuses to provide Plan B. He
stated he is unsure as to what consequences may be possible upon a State audit or reviewing data
which the Department supplies the State on a monthly basis. He stated he has been forthright with his
understanding of the three (3) potential ways Plan B may successfully prevent a pregnancy. He stated
he is not an attorney; therefore, he does not know what all of the implications of not providing Plan B
may be. In response to Chair Rademacher, Dr. Wallace stated the total grant amount is $187,202.00.
He thanked the Board for reconsidering the matter and he stated the County has been involved in this
Program for many years. Commissioner Long inquired as to whether there are other challenges with
this provision for any other government entities within the State. Dr. Wallace stated he is unaware of
any sister agencies who are not providing Plan B; however, it is possible other health departments
provide a voucher to obtain Plan B elsewhere, or the departments may be providing different
formulations of emergency contraception with different names and packaging than Plan B.
Commissioner Long indicated he finds it difficult to believe that all of Colorado's counties believe in all
or nothing policies regarding birth control options. Dr. Wallace stated counseling and referral must be
provided for emergency contraception; however, he does not know whether the State specifies Plan B
must be made available. He stated the States administer this Program, under Federal guidance;
therefore, there is opportunity for interpretation by the States, and the various States have passed
different statutes to supplement the Federal guidance. He stated he cannot postulate how the State will
respond; however, he hopes the Department will not lose all of the funding due to the change in
programming. In response to Chair Rademacher, Dr. Wallace stated when referring clients out for
emergency contraception, the Department must ensure there is not a barrier to clients receiving the
product, and typically, a voucher is provided as entry into another location. Chair Rademacher
indicated he does not want to see the Department lose all of its funding. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
stated the Board can approve the task order contract and give specific directions to Dr. Wallace. She
indicated she respects what Commissioner Garcia stated and the research he completed; however,
Plan B is considered a contraceptive by the American Medical Association and the FDA. She stated
Dr. Wallace has explained to the Board that an egg may become fertilized and implant in the uterus if
Plan B is not taken at the appropriate time, and Plan B will not induce abortion. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated she does not want to jeopardize the entire Program because it is very important for
low income women to have the opportunity to access birth control. Dr. Wallace stated the Department
will abide by the Board's direction; however, the Program is highly valued and Weld County has
participated in it since the 1970s, and the Department would like to be able to continue to participate in
it. Commissioner Conway inquired as to how the Department has been operating in regards to Plan B
since July 1, 2010. Dr. Wallace stated Plan B has remained in the cabinets since July 1, 2010, and
staff is advising clients the Department no longer has Plan B available to dispense, staff has been
counseling clients regarding emergency contraception as they are required to do by the State, and staff
has been advising clients where emergency contraception may be available if it is the option the client
has selected to utilize. Commissioner Garcia thanked Dr. Wallace for referring clients to other agencies
for Plan B, as he suggested at a previous meeting. Commissioner Long stated he was not present
when the original vote was taken and he understands the Board is to consider approving the contract in
its entirety. He stated there is theory on both sides of the Plan B issue, and he inquired as to whether
language about providing Plan B can be removed from the contract and language about providing
referral to other agencies that provide Plan B can be inserted in its place. Mr. Barker stated the
contract was initially approved with reference to Plan B being removed and today the Board is
considering rescinding the previous Resolution, in order to approve the contract in its entirety, or
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 3 BC0016
deciding to uphold the previously approved Resolution. He stated Paragraph 3 of the proposed
Resolution was drafted to provide the Board with two (2) options, and he reiterated those options are to
uphold its previous decision, or to rescind its previous action and approve the contract as it was
originally presented. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated if the Board wants to insert language regarding
providing referrals for emergency contraception, the matter should be continued to allow Mr. Barker and
Dr. Wallace an opportunity to develop proposed language. Dr. Wallace stated he has a strong
professional opinion that Plan B does not disrupt established pregnancies and he has never performed
an abortion. He stated there are medications which disrupt established pregnancies; however, those
medications have never been available through the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment and he would not recommend medications which cause abortions to the Board. He stated
the language placed in the agreement regarding Plan B should be medically accurate and it should not
refer to it as an abortive agent. Commissioner Kirkmeyer withdrew her previous motion and moved to
continue the matter to July 14, 2010, in order to allow adequate time to determine a referral process, in
order to maintain compliance with the State requirements. Commissioner Long seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ASSESSED VALUATION OF ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY AND MASTER PROTEST LOG
- REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY: Christopher Woodruff, Assessor, stated he has provided the
Assessment Roll, as required by Statute, which represents the current valuations for the year 2010, and
he has provided a list of people who protested their real or personal property valuations and the
decisions regarding each of the protests. Mr. Woodruff stated he also provided a list of personal
property accounts for which no declaration schedule was received, as is required by law, and he has
provided the list of movable apportioned equipment accounts. He stated the Assessed Valuation is
required by 39-8-105(1) and (2), C.R.S., and the first part of the Assessed Valuation is the taxable
value for Weld County. He stated 2010 is an intervening year; therefore, staff does not reappraise all
property in the County. Mr. Woodruff stated staff reappraised the business personal property and the
natural resources properties, including sand and gravel operations and oil and gas production. He
stated the current level of value for real property, including vacant land, residential, commercial, and
industrial is based on values from June 30, 2008, according to State statute. He stated current property
values will be considered in the general appraisal in the year 2011, which will occur statewide.
Mr. Woodruff stated the basis of many of the protests is that the economic conditions have deteriorated
significantly since the appraisal date, especially the protests from commercial property owners;
however, State statute does not allow the Assessor's Office to take into consideration economic
conditions for the current tax year. He stated the years 2009 and 2010 are yoked at the same level of
value; however, all the counties will reappraise in the year 2011 and utilize new data to appraise
property values. He stated vacant land values decreased six (6) percent; however, it is likely explained
by the fact staff is allowed to add one (1) year of absorption for vacant land. Mr. Woodruff clarified
there is a discounting procedure for vacant land to account for the fact that all vacant land is not sold
within two (2) years; however, staff did not adjust the market base values. He stated residential
property values increased one (1) percent, which is mostly representative of the new construction within
the County, including 500 new residences constructed last year, and there were some also
reclassifications. He stated commercial property increased two (2) percent in value, including
commercial real and commercial personal properties, and the increase is mostly due to new
construction within Weld County, including the construction of a private prison within the Town of
Hudson, which was fully valued for the first time in the year 2010; however, it was given a low partial
valuation in previous years. Mr. Woodruff stated the largest increase in value was from industrial
property, which increased 21 percent in value due to the completion of Vestas Blades America, Inc.,
within the City of Brighton, and expansions on other industrial properties. He stated the valuation of
Vestas Blades America, Inc., does not include a personal property valuation, since it was not operating
as of January 1, 2010; however, it will be valued as of January 1, 2011. He stated there was a small
decrease to the value of agricultural property within the County due to reclassifications, since there
were no values adjusted. Mr. Woodruff stated agricultural land is valued by utilizing a ten (10) year
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 4 BC0016
average, and the values remained the same as last year. He stated natural resources properties
decreased based on production filings from the operators, and the bulk of the valuation is based on
sand and gravel operations. He stated there was less sand and gravel materials being transported
from Weld County, which is likely a reflection on less demand due to the economy. He stated the
biggest change to the value of natural resources properties is due to the oil and gas production, and in
the year 2008, oil and gas were at record prices and production levels. Mr. Woodruff stated oil and gas
operators indicated the County should expect a 50 percent decrease in oil and gas production values
this year and there was a 44 percent decrease. He stated one of the reasons the value did not
decrease as much as predicted is that many operators that previously produced a great deal of gas,
produced more oil and oil prices recovered more than gas prices. He stated the State assessed value
is the same as last year; however, the State is in its protest period currently and the final figures will be
provided to the Assessor's Office on August 1, 2010, and the Assessor's Office will provide a
certification to the Board on August 25, 2010. Mr. Woodruff stated the overall abstractive Assessed
Valuation for the County has decreased approximately 21 percent. He stated the Tax Increment
Finance (TIF) value has become more significant because the Vestas Blades America, Inc., properties
are within a TIF District within the Brighton Urban Renewal Authority, and there is another TIF District
being set up within the Town of Frederick, which will affect the amount provided to other tax authorities.
He stated at the beginning of the year, the Assessor's Office projected a 25 percent decrease in value;
therefore, the value is slightly higher than was expected, which is likely due to the unanticipated
increases in certain areas. He stated the Assessor's Office will be reappraising the real property in the
County next year, and significant decreases in commercial property values are expected, since
vacancies have increased and rents and sales have decreased. Mr. Woodruff stated there will continue
to be some erosion in certain residential and vacant land values; however, there may be some recovery
in oil and gas production, since the projections indicate a stabilization in prices will occur, and there are
many oil and gas operators with commitments to drill in Weld County and many permits have already
been applied for, which will increase the County's tax base. He stated there will be a significant impact
to many of the taxing authorities within Weld County and he will be meeting with the Chiefs from the
Fire Districts next week to discuss the impacts. He further stated he has discussed the matter with one
Fire District already and its overall valuation has decreased 65 percent due to the decrease in oil and
gas values, which the Fire District heavily depends upon since its abstract was approximately
80 percent oil and gas values, as opposed to Weld County's, which is approximately 45 percent.
Commissioner Conway stated the new rules pertaining to the oil and gas industry have contributed to
the decrease in oil and gas production, and beginning in April, 2009, there was a significant decrease in
the number of permits being applied for; the number of permits decreased from 1,465 in March, 2009,
to 45 permits for the month of April, 2009. Mr. Woodruff stated if there are fewer wells being drilled,
there will be less oil and gas production. Commissioner Conway reiterated it seems the new rules
significantly affected the oil and gas values, particularly for the spring months in the year 2009. Chair
Rademacher concurred with Mr. Woodruff's prediction that oil and gas prices will stabilize this year, and
he stated there have been many permits issued this year and there is a new oil field which will begin
producing over the next decade. Mr. Woodruff stated there will also be an expansion to a wind farm
and new construction in existing industries, which will increase value within Weld County and help
stabilize the tax base; however, the market values will likely not reflect the increases in existing
property values until the year 2013. He stated the year 2011 will still be difficult, especially for
commercial properties, which are taxed at the 29 percent assessment rate. Chair Rademacher
indicated he was pleased to hear the residential and commercial values slightly increased. In response
to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Woodruff stated he predicts a decrease of 30 to 35 percent in the overall
commercial property value, and since there are fewer sales occurring, staff is encouraging the property
owners to provide information regarding vacancies and loss of rental incomes, in order for staff to be
able to value the properties by utilizing the income approach. Mr. Woodruff stated there is also a lack
of lending from banks to businesses, which hinders the overall business cycle and the economic
recovery. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated Mr. Woodruff also met with the Fire Chiefs last year and
they appreciate the gesture. Mr. Woodruff indicated he appreciates the opportunity to meet with the
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 5 BC0016
Fire Chiefs. Commissioner Garcia inquired as to how the Assessor's Office determines the value of the
sand and gravel operations. Mr. Woodruff stated the sand and gravel operations file information about
how much material was removed and what the selling price was with the Assessor's Office. He stated
staff utilizes a methodology which recognizes sand and gravel are diminishing resources which are not
replaceable. He stated the value was decreased due to a value of production and the price the
operators were able to generate, and the loss in production was driven by a decrease in demand for the
materials due to the overall slowing of the economy. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said
Assessed Valuation of all Taxable Property and Master Protest Log. Seconded by Commissioner
Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - DIVERSIFIED OPERATING
CORPORATION: Mr. Woodruff stated this is a petition for Tax Year 2009, and it is a situation where
Diversified Operating Corporation produced this oil and it had a contract with CKC Company to
purchase it; however, CKC Company declared bankruptcy before paying Diversified Operating
Corporation. He stated staff valued Diversified Operating Corporation based on the production and
prices filed with the 2009 declaration schedule. He stated under Section 39-7-102, C.R.S., there are
two (2) circumstances assessors may utilize to determine the value of the oil and gas leaseholds, which
are: 1) the selling price of the oil or gas sold in the preceding calendar year, or 2) the selling price of oil
or gas sold in the same field area for oil or gas transported from the premises which is not sold during
the preceding calendar year. Mr. Woodruff stated it is unfortunate the buyer did not pay; however, the
product was still produced and transported; therefore, it is still appropriate to include in the
measurement of the value of the leasehold for the year 2009. He stated the statute covers this
circumstance, and one of the Assistant County Attorneys reviewed the matter and concurred; therefore,
denial of the petition is recommended.
Richard Logan, representative for Diversified Operating Corporation, stated he completes property
taxes for several independent oil and gas companies, including EnCana and Noble Energy. He stated
in the past, the companies have always been assessed for the amount received, and he filed the
petition for abatement because Diversified Operating Corporation did not receive the payment for the
contract with CKC Company. Mr. Logan stated he is unaware of any assessments for oil and gas
companies which have not been based on the amount of payment received, and there was a Supreme
Court case which ruled the selling price is the amount of money which is actually received. In response
to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Woodruff stated the Assistant County Attorney he had consulted agreed with
his interpretation of the law. He stated the law describes how to value oil or gas which is produced and
transported, and not necessarily sold, by utilizing the selling price of a similar field to set the value. He
stated the County should not be a party in a private negotiation which may be cured through private
actions, nor would the County calculate what should be paid the County if the money is received, since
the County is determining the valuation one year at a time, based on the previous year's production.
Terry Gammon, President of Diversified Operating Corporation, stated the contracts with the companies
purchasing the oil are generally long term and the reason his company entered into a contract with
CKC Company is because Suncor decided not to purchase oil from small independent oil companies
any longer. He stated CKC Company had hauled oil for his company in the State of Kansas and he
was satisfied with the company; therefore, he contracted with CKC Company to haul oil. He stated the
title for the oil transfers at the tank; therefore, CKC Company is purchasing the oil and not just hauling
it. Mr. Cammon stated the oil was being hauled to the State of Kansas since he could not secure a
contract with a company within the State of Colorado to purchase the crude oil. He stated CKC
Company hauled a total of 20,150 barrels of oil and it should have paid a total of approximately
$2,400,000.00. He stated he does not have a problem with the valuation; however, he did not receive
the funds, and he is still arguing the matter in court. He stated Semcrude filed bankruptcy and CKC
Company was selling its oil to Semcrude, and the resulting financial losses to oil companies totaled
more than $5,000,000,000.00. He stated he did not receive the money; therefore, he cannot pay the
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 6 BC0016
taxes, and $2,400,000.00 is a great deal of money to a small independent oil and gas company. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Logan stated the Supreme Court case he referred to earlier
was the Yuma County Board of Equalization versus Cabot Petroleum Corporation, in the year 1993.
Commissioner Long stated this is the same type of situation as when a home was sold and payment
was not made; however, the back taxes are still owed. He stated he feels badly for Diversified
Operating Corporation; however, the County is not obligated by law to become involved with the
situation over CKC Company not providing payment. Mr. Woodruff stated there was a Supreme Court
case, Petron versus Washington County, where the Supreme Court ruled the valuation formula is
intended to value the oil in the ground and it is not a tax on the oil produced. He stated the oil was
produced and sold; however, the County is not a party to the contract and it is not involved with whether
or not Diversified Operating received payment from CKC Company. He stated Diversified Operating
Company may be compensated through the judicial process. Commissioner Long moved to deny said
abatement, based on staff's recommendation and interpretation of the law. Seconded by
Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR
TO SIGN — THE FORT 21, LTD.: Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated no concerns have been
expressed by the Sheriff's Office regarding this renewal application.
Deputy Glen Cowan, Sheriff's Office, stated he has no concerns about the establishment and it is active
in the Responsible Alcohol Retailer Association. He stated the establishment has participated in the
Red Card-Blue Card Program, where individuals who appear younger than 21 years of age attempt to
obtain alcohol, and the establishment has passed the test each time. Commissioner Long moved to
approve said application and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 53 BETWEEN CRS 10 AND 4: Janet Carter,
Department of Public Works, stated said closure will commence July 19, 2010, through July 22, 2010,
in order to complete culvert and drainage repairs, which were damaged as the result of flooding. She
stated the average daily traffic count for County Road 53 is 127 vehicles, according to a traffic count
conducted in the year 2008. She stated water will be utilized for dust abatement on the gravel portions
of the detour route, and roads signs and barricades will be utilized to notify drivers of the closure.
Ms. Carter stated that Pat Persichino, Director, Department of Public Works, indicated the cost for
repairing the damages caused by flooding this season has been approximately $254,000.00.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said temporary closure. Seconded by Commissioner Conway,
the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ON CR 54 BETWEEN CRS 15
AND 17: Ms. Carter stated she has received numerous complaints about this section of roadway and a
work session was conducted regarding the matter. She stated a speed study was conducted and the
85th percentile was 53 miles per hour. She stated typically the speed limit is set within five (5) miles of
the 85th percentile speed limit, in accordance with the recommendation of the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices; however, in this case, there is a hill and dips which create sight distance
issues; therefore, she recommends the speed limit be increased from 30 miles per hour to 45 miles per
hour. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said installation of speed limit signs. Seconded by
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PURCHASE OF SERVICES AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN -
ENVIROTECH SERVICES, INC.: Commissioner Garcia stated the agreement is for material which will
be utilized for dust abatement and soil stabilization. In response to Commissioner Conway,
Commissioner Garcia confirmed the agreement does not concern emissions. Commissioner Garcia
stated the first page of the agreement indicates Weld County shall be under no obligation to pay
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 7 BC0016
Envirotech Services, Inc., for any of the product supplied for the treatment of up to five (5) miles of
unpaved roads. Commissioner Long stated Envirotech will provide the product and Weld County will
provide the labor and equipment to apply the product, in order to test the product's effectiveness. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Mika confirmed the agreement allows Envirotech
Services, Inc., to conduct field tests of the product on certain unpaved roads. Commissioner Long
moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
FINAL READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2010-8, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
RE-ENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 3 HUMAN RESOURCES, OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE: Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to read Code Ordinance #2010-8 by title.
Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Barker read the Ordinance
into the record by title.
Patti Russell, Director, Department of Human Resources, stated there are several changes which have
been made to the Ordinance since the second reading, in order to clarify the rules regarding working
retirees. She stated one (1) of the proposed changes to the Ordinance is regarding clinic usage, which
will no longer be tracked by supervisors; it will be entered into PeopleSoft by the employees. In
response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Russell stated the language regarding the clinic is located
on Pages 8 and 9 of the Ordinance. Chair Rademacher provided the opportunity for public testimony;
however, none was given. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve Code Ordinance #2010-8 on final
reading. Commissioner Long thanked staff for their hard work on the Ordinance and he seconded
Commissioner Garcia's motion, which carried unanimously.
PLANNING:
FINAL READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2010-4, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
RE-ENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 22 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE: Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to read Code Ordinance #2010-4 by title only.
Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Barker read the Ordinance
into the record by title.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated the Weld County Planning Commission
considered the Ordinance on May 18, 2010, the first reading of the Ordinance occurred on June 7,
2010, and the second reading occurred on June 21, 2010. He stated the City of Greeley adopted the
North Greeley Rail Corridor Subarea Plan on July 6, 2010. Chair Rademacher provided the opportunity
for public testimony; however, none was given. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve Code
Ordinance #2010-4 on final reading. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried
unanimously.
SECOND READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2010-6, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
RE-ENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 21 AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE
INTEREST, CHAPTER 23 ZONING, CHAPTER 24 SUBDIVISIONS, CHAPTER 26 RUA, CHAPTER 27
PUD, AND CHAPTER 29 BUILDING REGULATIONS, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE:
Commissioner Garcia moved to read Code Ordinance #2010-6 by title only. Seconded by
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Barker read the Ordinance into the
record by title.
Tom Parko, Director, Department of Planning Services, stated there was a work session conducted
after the first reading of the Ordinance and then the Ordinance was presented to the Planning
Commission. He stated the proposed changes which were presented to the Planning Commission
were an item concerning non-commercial radio towers and an item concerning two axle vehicles under
Class II home occupations. Mr. Parko stated there were a couple of people who operate radio towers
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 8 BC0016
who attended the first reading of the Ordinance and expressed concerns about the proposed changes
concerning radio towers, which resulted in some of the language being removed from the Ordinance.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Parko stated the language was removed from
Section 23-4-895.E, which stated, "When an amateur radio operator ceases to have the F.C.C. license
or removes himself or herself from the occupancy of the property and the associated structures or
dwellings, and if no person being an amateur radio operator continues to occupy the property and the
associated dwellings, then the amateur radio antenna/tower shall be removed pursuant to applicable
permit issued in compliance with the building code, within thirty (30) days of the discontinuance, unless
Planning Services grants an extension of time for good cause shown for the removal not exceeding
ninety (90) days." He stated Section 23-4-895.F.4.a has also been removed, which stated, "Prime
soils, as defined by the Important Farmlands of Weld County Map, 1979." Mr. Parko stated a flood
hazard development permit will still be required from the Department of Public Works if the property is
located in a flood plain. Chair Rademacher indicated he does not understand why the item about prime
soil will be removed, since most of towers are stand alone towers and many of the towers are located
atop homes. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Parko confirmed the Planning Commission has
approved the proposed changes. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Parko stated the
argument provided by the tower operators for removing Section 23-4-895.E is that they apply for a
permit from the Federal government and since it is approved and regulated through the Federal
government, they do not understand why documentation would be required by the County.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to how Weld County staff will enforce the Federal requirements
about tower removal if the Section is removed from the Ordinance. Mr. Parko stated staff's initial
position was that it would like the requirement to be included in the Ordinance. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated Weld County staff will no longer have an enforcement mechanism if the item is
removed, and Mr. Parko concurred. Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested another work session be
scheduled to discuss the Ordinance further, and Chair Rademacher concurred. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Mr. Parko stated there is one (1) more proposed change to the Ordinance for second
reading, which is located within Appendix 23-F. He stated Federal statute regulating the towers
requires the towers to be a minimum of 35 feet in height and the County had the maximum tower height
in the Residential Zone Districts as 30 feet; therefore, the Planning Commission decided to allow
towers up to 40 feet in the Residential Zone Districts.
Larry Benco stated he is not a Weld County resident; however, he is interested in purchasing a property
within Weld County. He stated he attended the Planning Commission hearing, and he has been
working with Mr. Parko and Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services. He stated the towers are
utilized for many purposes and although he is an amateur radio operator, he currently primarily utilizes
the tower for wireless internet access, which is limited in the country. Mr. Benco stated the reason he is
opposed to the language regarding prime soil and flood plains is because if a house was allowed on
prime soil or on a flood plain, then a tower should be allowed, since it has far less of an impact on the
flood plain and prime soil. He stated a tower is a much smaller issue than a house, it can be easily
removed and it will not impede flood water. He stated people may be interested in installing towers for
cellular phones, high definition television, or shortwave radio, in addition to internet access or amateur
radio. Mr. Benco stated a process where manufacturer drawings are provided, in lieu of requiring an
engineer to sign off on the tower at substantial expense, seems to be more appropriate for people who
are installing a tower to access the internet. Chair Rademacher indicated he concurs with some of
Mr. Benco's points and he advised him there will be an upcoming work session to discuss the
Ordinance, which Mr. Benco may attend. Mr. Benco stated there is no Federal permit process for
installing a tower; however, amateur radio licenses are issued by the Federal government, in order to
grant permission to transmit on frequency ranges authorized by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Commissioner Long encouraged Mr. Benco to attend the work session.
Robert Sherwood, Weld County resident, stated he is an amateur radio operator and he obtains
internet access via a tower; therefore, it is important to him that people retain the ability to install towers
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 9 BC0016
for the reasons Mr. Benco mentioned. He stated the towers are assets to personal properties and have
value. Chair Rademacher invited Mr. Sherwood to attend the work session. Mr. Sherwood stated he
has commenced the process for the building permit and all the tower companies provide specific
engineering drawings and information about the towers' wind load resistance; therefore, the research
has been completed and citizens should not have to pay an engineer to approve it.
Joann Maez, Weld County resident, stated rather than ban medical marijuana, Weld County should
regulate it. She stated the proposed Ordinance does not affect her, since she is a primary care giver
and she has no ties with a dispensary; however, the tax money from medical marijuana could help
Weld County. She stated if the Ordinance is passed, the dispensaries will be forced to relocate into
residential areas and growing operations should be located in the country. She stated this is uncharted
territory and the County is moving too quickly and not adequately researching the matter. Chair
Rademacher inquired as to how Ms. Maez proposes the County regulate medical marijuana. Ms. Maez
stated she was referring to regulating the size of the operations and not allowing large warehouses, as
well as limiting the number of plants allowed per facility. She stated a representative from the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) contacted her as a primary care giver, and the representative indicated
growing 99 plants or fewer is a community issue, whereas growing 100 plants or more is a Federal
issue. She stated monitoring fewer than 100 plants per facility is much easier to regulate than
hundreds or thousands of plants per facility; therefore, she recommends limiting the number of plants
allowed per facility. Chair Rademacher stated it remains illegal at the Federal level to grow even
one (1) marijuana plant; therefore, the County cannot legally grow or sell medical marijuana. He stated
the Federal government is not enforcing prosecuting medical marijuana at this point; however, it can
begin enforcing its laws at any point. Ms. Maez stated the current Federal administration has indicated
it is not going to target primary care givers or facilities growing 100 plants or fewer. Chair Rademacher
stated the way the Ordinance is written, a patient can grow their own product and a care giver can grow
for their patients; however, large operations will be banned. He stated the Board cannot ban medical
marijuana for personal use or growth due to the current State law.
Dee Norton, Weld County resident, stated she is not concerned about regulating who can obtain
prescriptions for medical marijuana; however, she believes the size of the operations should be limited.
She stated the economy in unincorporated Weld County is depressed and there are many vacant
buildings, and this is an opportunity for the County to generate income. Ms. Norton stated the County
can require the growing operations to register with the County and to meet certain guidelines, as
opposed to banning the operations. She stated she attended a meeting regarding House Bill 1284 and
a Rule Making Committee is being formed with the goal to assist the State of Colorado in being one of
the first states to make growing medical marijuana into a legitimate business. She stated if Weld
County bans medical marijuana, an opportunity to improve the economy will be missed. Chair
Rademacher stated one of the issues he has with House Bill 1284 is the growing operations are not
required to notify the County, not even the Sheriff's Office, where the growing operations are located;
only the State must be notified of the locations. He stated it would be difficult to regulate medical
marijuana facilities if the County is unaware of the locations. Ms. Norton stated House Bill 1284 does
not go into effect for one (1) year and the local governments are in charge until then; therefore, the
County could develop an application process.
Mike Ciletti, legal representative for Roots, LLC, stated he is present on behalf of a client with an
existing medical marijuana growing operation in Weld County and he is proposing language for an
exception to the ban. He stated his client has made a significant financial investment in the property,
as a result of striving to be a legitimate growing facility in compliance with the State, including utilizing
the State's database for tracking and measurement, and his client would like to be able to continue to
operate in order to recover the investment. Mr. Ciletti stated he understands the State is still in the
process of establishing its regulations, which makes it difficult for the County to establish regulations;
however, he would like to propose language for an exception. He read the proposed language into the
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 10 BC0016
record as follows: "If an existing structure or tract of land in Weld County is currently being used as an
operational premises cultivation operation for the cultivation or manufacture of medical marijuana, is
located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, is located at least 1,000 feet away from any church; school;
alcohol or drug treatment facility; principal campus of a college, university, or seminary; or a residential
care facility, and the operator or owner of said structure or tract of land is not associated with, through
ownership or partnership, any medical marijuana centers or medical marijuana infused products
manufacturing facilities operating in Weld County. He stated the purpose of the language is to draw a
distinction between the growing operations and dispensary operations. He stated it makes sense to
have growing facilities in Weld County, with its strong agricultural background. Chair Rademacher
indicated he understands current growing operations in Weld County, which were established prior to
June 1, 2010, will be grandfathered in until July, 2011. He stated there is a work session scheduled
and Mr. Ciletti is invited to attend it. Commissioner Conway stated he shares Chair Rademacher's
concern about House Bill 1284 not requiring growing operations to notify local law enforcement about
where the operations are located; the operations only have to report the locations to the Colorado
Department of Revenue, which creates a grave public safety concern. Mr. Ciletti stated his client has
no problem notifying the County where the growing facility is located. He recommended the Board
review an Ordinance in Mendocino County which heavily regulates medical marijuana growing
operations, from lighting requirements, to requiring the growers to purchase zip ties to help the Sheriff
track the number of plants at a facility. He stated he fully supports regulations to weed out the
operators who are not legitimate; however, this business can be legitimate and provide a product for
patients. Mr. Barker stated on Page 39 of the Ordinance, it addresses Optional Premises Cultivation
Operations, which is one of the four (4) types of licenses that House Bill 1284 addresses; however, the
Ordinance will ban medical marijuana operations in all zone districts within unincorporated Weld County
after July 1, 2011. He stated the State will handle licensing for medical marijuana facilities similar to
liquor licenses, where the State has a licensing process and the local governments also have a
licensing process; however, the Board's intent is not to issue any local licenses for medical marijuana
operations. He stated the local license does not become necessary to operate until July 1, 2011;
therefore, Mr. Ciletti is proposing language which will allow his client to be able to operate beyond
July 1, 2011, and to allow that, the Board would need to enact regulations to grant local licenses and
then create regulations for the industry. Mr. Barker stated if the Board chose to create regulations and
allow licensing, it would know where the operations are located. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the
Constitutional Amendment allows for patients to utilize medical marijuana; however, it does not allow
large growing operations. Mr. Barker clarified it allows for patients and caregivers to grow medical
marijuana. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to why individuals began medical marijuana growing
operations when they were not patients or caregivers, since it is illegal. Mr. Ciletti stated it is not illegal
to grow medical marijuana for patients and his client has dispensaries located in the Denver area and
elsewhere; therefore, the client was not growing more marijuana plants than is allowed per patient. In
response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Barker stated the Board will not have any liability at the Federal
level if it approves any medical marijuana operations. He stated if the Board added the provision
proposed by Mr. Ciletti, it would just be addressing operations which began prior to June 1, 2010, in the
A (Agricultural) Zone District as non-conforming uses.
Landon Gates, resident of the City of Denver, indicates he represents a client who is a part-owner and
operator of a medical marijuana growing facility in Weld County. Mr. Gates stated his client has made
a significant financial investment into the operation and has worked diligently to comply with House
Bill 1284. He stated some type of grandfathering would be appropriate for existing facilities and there
may be satisfactory alternative approaches to a ban, such as some type of licensing process, similar to
what the City and County of Denver has in place. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve Code
Ordinance #2010-6 on second reading. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried
unanimously.
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 11 BC0016
FIRST READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2010-1, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
RE-ENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 22 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CHAPTER 26
REGIONAL URBANIZATION AREA (RUA), OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE — DRY CREEK RUA:
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, stated Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District,
applicant, is acting on behalf of the designated landowners to propose a new Regional Urbanization
Area (RUA) within Weld County. She stated Weld County currently has two designated RUAs; the 1-25
RUA and the Southeast RUA, also known as Pioneer. Ms. Martin stated there are three (3) elements in
the creation of a new RUA: the RUA designation on the Urban Development Map, adoption of goals
and policies for Chapter 26, and adoption of a new RUA Structural Land Use Map, all of which are
inter-related items and require a Code change. She stated this is not zoning; therefore, it does not vest
any rights associated with zoning, it does not allow for subdivision of land, and it does not create the
ability to have commercial uses, in and of itself. She stated since it is not a subdivision, it will not result
in the creation of any lot lines, and it will not allow for the release of any building permits associated
with those types of uses. Ms. Martin stated it is fundamentally a comprehensive visionary document.
She stated the Weld County Comprehensive Plan was last adopted in the year 2008 and it contains
numerous policies and goals, and many of the goals are designated to reinforce the concepts of growth
paying for its own way and for urban scale development to be located within existing urban areas, such
as an RUA. She stated the proposed RUA is envisioned as an extension of the Denver Metropolitan
Area, which will be located in the middle of the 1-25 and U.S. Highway 85 Corridors. Ms. Martin stated
the applicants are proposing a policy area of 2,095 acres in size, which is approximately 1,500 acres of
potential urban scale development, and it is roughly the size of the Town of Eaton, 1.5 times the size of
the Town of Platteville, and one-third the size of the Town of Fort Lupton. She presented some
photographs of the proposed RUA location via PowerPoint, and she stated prior to submitting the
application, the applicants conducted three (3) open houses, which was not a requirement of Weld
County; however, it was a good will effort on the part of the applicant to inform the public and obtain
input. She stated it was also reported that the applicant spoke to individual land owners in the area.
Ms. Martin stated County staff had advised the applicant it was important to communicate with the
public, the surrounding municipalities, and referral agencies, which the applicant indicated has taken
place. She stated the application was submitted on August 1, 2009, which is one (1) of the two (2)
times per year in which amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be submitted, and then the
application was sent to a variety of referral agencies. She stated the application was presented to the
Planning Commission on January 19, 2010, and it recommends approval. Ms. Martin stated this is the
first reading of the Ordinance, the second reading will occur on August 4, 2010, and the final reading
will occur on August 23, 2010. She stated 2,200 to 6,600 dwelling units are proposed for the RUA,
which equates to a population of 6,500 to 19,700. She stated the commercial proposal for this site is
limited to a maximum allowance of 187,000 square feet and there will be limited employment at site,
consisting mainly of neighborhood mixed use centers, which will allow for a combination of commercial
and higher density residential uses. Ms. Martin stated the applicant has indicated there are numerous
retail and employment centers in the area, such as Vestas Blades America, Inc.; therefore, there is no
need for additional employment opportunities within the RUA. She stated traffic and access are major
considerations for any application of this nature and the applicant provided a traffic study, which
indicated there will be approximately 50,700 vehicle trips per work day, and future applications will
require a Master Transportation Plan and a Drainage Report. She stated it is proposed that central
water will be provided by the existing Todd Creek Metropolitan District in Adams County, which has
indicated it has the ability to provide water to the area on a contractual basis. Ms. Martin stated the
Town of Fort Lupton entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Todd Creek Village
Metropolitan District, in the year 2006, to provide sewer service. She stated emergency services will be
provided by the Mountain View and Greater Brighton Fire Protection Districts, and part of the proposal
is for a law enforcement authority, which could be served with a seven (7) percent mill levy increase.
She stated school sites will be supported by Weld County School District RE-8 and Adams County
School District RE-27J, which will include four (4) additional K-8 schools and one (1) additional high
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 12 BC0016
school; however, staff has determined six (6) additional schools will be needed. Ms. Martin stated most
of the proposed RUA location is currently being utilized for agricultural uses. She stated if the RUA is
approved, the Structural Land Use Map will become part of Chapter 26 of the Weld County Code, and
as a Condition of Approval, the applicant was required to amend the Structural Land Use Map to
include two (2) additional schools, a future transit parking site, a library, a community park, a cultural
facility, a recreation center, a Fire Station, a Sheriff's Office site, additional buffers, and an additional
employment center. She stated the applicant has modified the Structural Land Use Map to include the
elements requested by staff and to address the Conditions outlined in the Planning Commission's
Resolution, and staff subsequently modified this version of the Structural Land Use Map. She clarified
staff removed the road classifications, added a note which states, "Subject to approval of the RUA
Master Transportation Plan," and removed the note which stated, "The location, size, and number of
RUA neighborhood centers, schools, public facilities, parks, amenities, and transit sites are conceptual
and subject to final definition and revision at the time of the PUD zoning." Ms. Martin stated if the
Ordinance is approved, staff recommends this version of the Structural Land Use Map be included as
Appendix 26S, along with any modifications approved by the Board. She stated there is existing
zoning, or platted lots, for up to 22,000 dwelling units within a five (5) mile area of the proposed RUA,
and an analysis of future residential growth in the Denver Region, which was conducted in June, 2006,
indicated Adams County had 69,500 lots ready for residential units to be constructed. Ms. Martin
stated 36 referrals were sent and 20 responses have been received, and many of the referral agencies
will be presenting comments to the Board throughout the course of the three (3) readings of the
Ordinance. She stated the City of Brighton passed a Resolution on May 4, 2010, expressing its
concerns and disapproval of the proposed RUA, and some of the concerns included the feasibility of
the proposed RUA, transportation issues, utilities and other services, including parks, schools, and
residential densities. She stated the City of Thornton indicated it entered into an intergovernmental
agreement with Todd Creek Farms Metropolitan District #1 and Todd Creek Village, LLC, and the
agreement states with respect to territory located within the City's Development Area, the District will
not expand its service area to include any area within the City's Development Area and the District will
not provide utility services to users which are outside the District service area and within the City's
Development Area, without written notice to, and approved by, the City. Ms. Martin stated the County
has two (2) intergovernmental agreements with the City of Dacono and the Town of Fort Lupton, which
conflict with the proposal, since the agreements indicate this area cannot be supported for urban scale
development. She stated the agreements indicate development outside urban growth areas, to the
extent legally possible, pursuant to the Plan and the County's land use regulations as described in
Section 19-2-50.B, the County will disapprove all proposals for urban development in areas of the
Southern Weld Planning Area and the Municipal Referral Area, outside the Urban Growth Boundary
Area. She stated based on the referral response received and the criteria outlined in the Weld County
Code, staff recommended denial of the application. Ms. Martin stated there are long-term indications
the northern Front Range will continue to be a location for future development; however, the analysis
conducted by staff suggests the Comprehensive Plan does not need to be revised at this point, in part
due to the timing for the need for urban scale development. She stated the proposed 30-year
development timeframe and the current economic environment do not provide credence to the idea this
RUA should be anticipated at this time. She stated the analysis provided by the applicant indicates the
retail and employment in the existing larger region is adequate for years to come within the existing
towns. Ms. Martin stated the surrounding municipalities are unable or unwilling to annex, which further
bolsters the idea the timing is not right for anticipating urban scale development in this area. She
stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the RUA because it determined the
applicant satisfied the requirements of the Weld County Code, and one member indicated it is important
to note the rights of property owners, to proceed on a course which satisfies long-term goals, and the
Planning Commission needs to be sensitive to respond to the competitive environment, in order to help
Weld County and the regional area, and to meet the needs of the citizens. She stated another member
of the Planning Commission indicated the intergovernmental agreements need to be reviewed and the
citizen's of Weld County need to remain in mind as amendments are made to the Weld County Code.
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 13 BC0016
Paul Echternacht, Weld County resident, stated the proposed RUA will result in urban sprawl, at its
worst, and the Board must decide between the public good and private greed. He requested that the
Commissioners vote in opposition to the proposed Ordinance.
Heidi Hansen, Department of Public Works, indicated the applicant has submitted a Conceptual Traffic
Impact Analysis and a Drainage Study; however, more detailed comprehensive studies and analysis
will be needed when the Sketch Plan and Change of Zone application are submitted, if the project
moves forward, and the application materials were reviewed for the overall concepts. She stated the
Preliminary Traffic Study recommends that County Road 17 be identified as a future six (6) lane
arterial, County Road 6 be identified as a four (4) lane principal arterial, and that County Roads 19, 21,
and 2 be identified as two (2) lane minor arterials, which will result in the construction of approximately
three (3) miles of six (lane) arterial roadway, 8.5 miles of four (4) lane arterial roadway, and almost 15
miles of two (2) lane arterial, including any required bridge and intersection improvements. She stated
the study also suggests 12 intersections be controlled with traffic lights or roundabouts, and that County
Roads 17, 23.5, and 19 be realigned to correct the offset intersections. Ms. Hansen stated the
applicant, should expect to fully fund these expensive on-site and off-site road improvements, since the
need for this level of road improvements is due to the potential RUA. She stated improvements will be
triggered by certain levels of platting within the RUA; however, some upfront improvements will be
required, such as shoulder widening, acceleration and deceleration lanes, and possibly signals. She
stated the proposed development will have approximately the same population as the Town of Windsor
at full build-out; however, it will create a minor number of jobs and commercial opportunities.
Ms. Hansen stated future studies will need to detail where the majority of residents will be traveling for
work, shopping, and entertainment, in order to establish potential traffic patterns. She stated the
applicant acknowledged extensive improvements are necessary and it will fully fund the improvements
necessary due to the development. She stated the applicant submitted a Conceptual Drainage Report,
which staff has determined to be adequate for this stage of the process; however, a Full Master
Drainage Plan and maps of the flood plain will be necessary if the process moves forward, and a Letter
of Map Revision will need to be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Ms. Hansen stated the applicant acknowledged the comments about drainage and is aware of the
future studies which will be required. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Hansen clarified the
recommendations about the road improvements were all made by the applicant, as a result of their
Conceptual Traffic Impact Analysis, and there has not been a Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by
staff. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, she stated the traffic analysis was very
conceptual in nature, and the applicant utilized information from surrounding cities' Transportation
Plans, including the Cities of Broomfield, Northglenn, and Thornton. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated,
since the proposed RUA will be an extension of the Denver Metropolitan Area, it seems County Road 2
should be upgraded. Ms. Carter stated the applicant determined traffic analysis zones for the area
based on traffic projections, and as a result, the applicant identified the roadways mentioned by
Ms. Hansen as collector roads, arterials, and local roads. She stated due to the preliminary nature,
staff cannot confirm or deny whether the identified roads will be the types of roads the applicant has
predicted, and she has requested the applicant prepare a Master Transportation Plan to conduct a
more detailed analysis. She stated there is nothing greater than a two (2) lane arterial in Weld County,
and projections for roadways within Weld County are not greater than four (4) lane arterials; therefore,
a six (6) lane arterial roadway is significant and until further analysis can be completed, staff cannot
predict if the roadways identified by the applicant are appropriate. Chair Rademacher declared a
one (1) hour recess at 11:50 a.m.
(Clerk's Note: Let the record reflect that upon reconvening Esther Gesick is the Acting Clerk to the
Board and Elizabeth Strong was the Acting Clerk to the Board until then.)
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 14 BC0016
Upon reconvening, and in response to previous questions, Ms. Carter indicated, in 2009, the average
daily traffic count on County Road 2, between Roads 15 and 17, was approximately 2,557 vehicles.
She stated around the same time a count was also taken on County Road 6, which averaged 1,194
vehicles in the same general vicinity.
Chair Rademacher informed the audience of various scheduling conflicts and indicated the Board will
recess the hearing, at 2:00 p.m., to accommodate previously scheduled meetings, and then return to
complete the remainder of this Ordinance discussion.
Trevor Jiricek, Director, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated sewer service for the
development is proposed to be provided by the City of Fort Lupton, which has expanded its 208 Service
Boundary to include the subject site and has entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the
applicant for said service. He stated the applicant has indicated water will be provided by the Todd
Creek Village Metropolitan District (TCVMD); however, at this time staff has not received any
documentation concerning the availability of water, therefore, that is addressed as a Condition of
Approval. He indicated the State Engineer's Office reported it could not verify a viable water supply,
based on the information provided. Mr. Jiricek stated since this application is urban-scale in nature,
staff will be requesting parks, walking/biking trails, detached sidewalks, and a recreation district to help
ensure all residents have access to recreational opportunities. He noted it is important that the schools
and commercial areas be safely connected to residential neighborhoods to accommodate safe walking
and biking of residents in the area. He stated there is no mass transit available in the area; therefore,
staff is also suggesting the applicant include a Park and Ride feature, as it appears most residents will
be commuting to employment outside of the development. He further stated the Planning Commission
did recommend the designation of a future parking and community development park site, which were
addressed in the Planning Commission Resolution as Conditions of Approval #1.A.2 and #1.A.4, and
the development of a recreational district and verification of an adequate water supply were also
required pursuant to Conditions of Approval #2.G and #2.F. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr.
Jiricek reiterated there is an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Fort Lupton to provide public
sewer, City representatives are present and can address any questions from the Board, and he
confirmed they have completed the 208 boundary amendment process. In response to Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, Mr. Jiricek stated he will e-mail the Board a link to the maps displaying the 208 boundaries
for the Cities of Fort Lupton, Northglenn, and Brighton, and the St. Vrain Sanitation District.
Don Warden, Director of Budget and Management Analysis, stated he held the title of Director of
Finance and Administration when he completed his review detailed in letters dated September 19, and
December 21, 2009, and from a public finance perspective he does not recommend approval of this
application. He stated the core of municipal financing in the State of Colorado is sales tax; however, as
proposed, the development will be similar in size to the Town of Windsor, yet there will be no
opportunity for sales tax revenue. Mr. Warden stated the national economic situation has continued to
decline; the housing slump is projected to continue, with one out of seven living units being vacant; and
the assessed property values for 2011 are anticipated to decline by fifteen percent. He stated the
development is primarily residential, and without a mix of assessed value classes (i.e. - commercial and
industrial), the mechanism for funding the project will be reduced by approximately 15 percent,
consistent with the decline in assessed residential values. He stated Metropolitan Districts set caps on
bonded indebtedness, in an attempt to avoid problems that were experienced in Adams and El Paso
Counties where consumers were purchasing properties and then having to shoulder the financial
burden of the remainder of the development that remained vacant. He explained capping the bonded
indebtedness shifts the risk to the bond holders. He stated Metro Districts have been used to fund
projects like the one proposed; however, investors are shying away from them as a result of the
housing slump. He stated in these times the Board must consider whether Metropolitan Districts are
even a viable financial option until the economy corrects itself. He stated dependency on property tax,
without the mix of sales tax, will be problematic in the future for any residents who do move in, and they
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 15 BC0016
will end up paying twice for the commercial goods purchased at other municipalities and then paying
again in their immediate community because there will not be enough tax base. Mr. Warden indicated
Law Enforcement Authorities (LEA) in Colorado are capped at 7.0 mills. He stated if there was a police
force dependent upon an LEA, they would also need to cut their force by 15 to 20 percent consistent
with the decline in property tax. He referenced communities of similar design, including Highlands
Ranch, Centennial and Lakewood in Jefferson County. He stated Highlands Ranch put together a
large community and has maintained it fairly well, although some individuals support incorporation to
gain the added sales tax, and Centennial and Lakewood both incorporated to avoid annexation issues
with the City of Denver and to gain sales tax in order to survive. He noted Highlands Ranch also has a
share back of the sales tax for road and bridge projects within the development. He emphasized that
Weld County does not have a sales tax, and cited that if the Board does proceed with this proposal,
there should definitely be a number of conditions to require an LEA, and that the infrastructure, parks
and recreation, and other amenities be paid for by the Homeowners' Association of the Metropolitan
District, since there is no way Weld County can cover those expenses. He cautioned the Board to
consider the five percent property tax limitation in Weld County, and explained if there is growth in this
community and elsewhere in the County; the Board will be restricted to the five percent unless the
County Council allows them to exceed it. If not, any growth in this development that exceeds the five
percent will appreciate zero assessed value, yet the County will continue to be burdened with providing
services. Mr. Warden stated his memorandum, dated December 21, 2009, addresses some
misimpressions made by the applicant and their consultant concerning Highway User Tax Funds
(HUTF). He clarified HUTF are State, not Federal dollars, and the program functions as a share back
with municipalities, whereas in the proposal there would be no share back. In summary, Mr. Warden
reiterated from a public finance perspective, this is a poorly designed project.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Warden stated Weld County has a cap of 50.0 mills for
infrastructure in a Metropolitan District; however, there would be an additional 7.0 mills for the Fire
Department and 7.0 mills for an LEA, and potentially other districts such as a library district.
Responding further to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Warden stated this development would face
serious financial problems if Amendments 60 and 61 pass in this year's election, because they will
reduce the amount of financing and initiate a ten-year infrastructure construction limit, which is
impossible to complete in a project of this caliber, which is typically done in phases. He further stated
other experts have indicated if these initiatives pass they will put municipal financing firms out of
business. He stated Proposition 101 will also put a strain on the transportation system of Weld County
and this development would increase the problem. Responding further to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Warden concurred that the three existing LEA's in Weld County (Beebe Draw, Pioneer, and
Southwest Weld) have not paid for themselves or even fully materialized because there is not adequate
build out. He stated the large LEA in Arapahoe County has enough revenue due to the scale of
economy; however, the smaller ones in Weld County have not materialized and have no real value, and
even the LEA in Jefferson County has had some problems.
Mr. Jiricek stated he did e-mail the Fort Lupton 208 Boundary map to the Board and Mr. Hanlon.
Mr. Barker stated he also forwarded the information to the Clerk's Office for inclusion in the record.
George Hanlon, President of Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District (TCVMD), displayed a
PowerPoint presentation, marked Exhibit I, introduced his associates, and stated they first approached
Weld County with this idea in 2004. He stated the RUA concept is such that it recognizes there are
areas outside of the surrounding municipalities of influence which are ideal for development and the
regulations setup highway systems, development design, and job opportunities. He stated the TCVMD
is adjacent to the proposed Dry Creek RUA, and consists of 5,000 acres of development, with 2,200
customers in the water district. Mr. Hanlon acknowledged that development has slowed down;
however, he believes it will pick up again, and at this point they are just contemplating an amendment
through the Comprehensive Plan process. He stated TCVMD was formed for the purpose of providing
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 16 BC0016
water to the Todd Creek residents, and they are also authorized to provide sewer service. He stated
they are a Title 32 Revenue District, which is different, because they operate as an enterprise fund and
do not charge a mill levy. He stated they charge tap fees and user fees for the use and consumption of
their water, therefore, they are not relying on a mill levy to survive and have been operating for twelve
years. Mr. Hanlon stated their service area was initially in Adams County, and following instruction
from Weld County, they coordinated an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Fort Lupton
and established their 208 Boundary. He stated there is approximately $67 million of infrastructure in
place, and they have the capacity to deliver both potable and non-potable water, relying primarily upon
surface water and a reverse osmosis plant to treat the water. He stated TCVMD is the only district in
the state that has an approved discharge permit because they discharge the brine from the potable
system into ponds, which is then blended with irrigation water and reapplied through irrigation. He
explained the water system is made up of four percent groundwater and 96 percent surface water,
which is why the Brantner Ditch is so critical. Mr. Hanlon stated the District is fully aware of the Prairie
Water Project, Aurora's intensions, and the Denver Metro Waste Project, and the District intends to
keep its water circulating in Weld County. He stated their primary storage is in the Smith Reservoir,
which contains .5 million acre feet to irrigate the entire Todd Creek Village. He further stated the
District has also purchased the Signal Reservoirs (equating to an additional .5 million acre feet of water
storage), and it is the primary share holder in the Signal, Farmers High Line, and the Brantner Ditches.
He reiterated they first met with council in 2004, and at that time the District was reviewing its ability to
expand into Weld County. He stated they met with the Commissioners and were directed to contact the
surrounding communities to address water and sewer issues. Subsequently, the City of Dacono
decided to connect with the St. Vrain Sanitation District for sanitary sewer; therefore, they approached
the City of Fort Lupton and finalized the IGA in 2006. He stated the IGA identifies this area as an
extraterritorial area and they pay an extraterritorial rate for the sewer service received in bulk. He
stated the IGA clearly contemplated urban level development, and staff's requirement for a
pre-annexation agreement with Fort Lupton was confusing because there is an IGA between the Cities
of Brighton and Fort Lupton stipulating that Fort Lupton will not expand south. Mr. Hanlon confirmed
the City of Fort Lupton has amended its 208 Boundary and the District expanded its service area under
the authority of Adams County, with notification to Weld County and the City of Thornton. He stated the
IGA with Thornton provides the City with the first right of refusal, and they currently have no plans for
water service in the Dry Creek RUA area. He stated after working with some of the land owners the
applicant was prepared to submit an application; however, in 2008, they were requested to delay until
the Weld County RUA regulations were adopted, and then they commenced with the current proposal,
in 2009. He stated they did temporarily postpone the application while they worked with the
surrounding property owners and held community meetings, which resulted in eight property owners
who did sign the application and several who declined. He reiterated the Planning Commission did
recommend, on a vote of seven to zero, to approve this application.
Chair Rademacher opened the hearing for public testimony from those who are unable to return
following the Board's other meeting when they reconvene.
John Dent spoke on behalf of the Fort Lupton Development Corporation and stated they are in favor of
this project. He stated they believe the IGA with Fort Lupton to provide the capacity for sanitary sewer
is an asset for economic development in the area. He stated he also represents the Howards on the
potential sale of their property for inclusion in this development.
Bill Vitec, Senior Vice President of AE Com, formerly EDAW, Inc., stated their firm is assisting the
applicant in land planning and the entitlement process for this project. He referred to the PowerPoint
presentation, marked Exhibit I, and stated this is just a preliminary step in the overall process, and
future steps will allow for additional comment as the project develops. He explained once the RUA is
accepted, then they will pursue the PUD process, including a sketch plan, change of zone, and final
plan. He reviewed the RUA process slide for the record which led up to this hearing and stated the
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 17 BC0016
intent at this time is not to produce a detailed design, rather, they are trying to provide the goals and
policies for future development in the designated area outside of the surrounding local jurisdictions. He
stated the application does meet the standards of approval established by the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan and RUA review criteria. Mr. Vitec stated this process and the applicant's
planning efforts coexist for comprehensive planning for the future, and the applicant has worked with
staff and the surrounding community members to address the relevant issues. He explained they feel
this site is clearly in the path of future growth, and although it is difficult to consider right now, it is
important to plan for growth that may be taking place 40 to 50 years in the future. He stated the
TCVMD is the logical entity to provide water service, and he believes in the long term this area of Weld
County will have the necessary tax base to support a development of this nature. Mr. Vitec reviewed
the slides detailing the benefits of the proposed RUA and the Framework Plan, indicating the proposal
responds to major open space, buffers, facilities, public services, and setbacks. He acknowledged that
the development will be predominantly residential in nature, with a variety of housing types and
potentially some commercial uses based on market demand, and the open space and trails will serve
as a quality amenity. He stated they have also worked with the Cities of Brighton and Fort Lupton
concerning the placement of schools, and coordinated with emergency support services to address
their needs. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Vitec stated they assert this project will
increase Weld County's tax base as a result of increased property taxes and a small amount of
commercial uses. He further stated as new communities develop, the investment serves to raise the
surrounding property values and the level of income and tax bases of other new homeowners moving
into the area. Responding further to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Vitec explained there will be an
investment in infrastructure that will be sized for capacity beyond the contribution of this project. He
stated it will need connections between Highway 85 and 1-70 for those who live here, but also travel to
other areas of the County. He clarified the infrastructure improvements will consist of improved
transportation corridors and open space which may be utilized by all residents of Weld County.
Chair Rademacher recessed the matter, from 1:00 to 1:46 p.m., to allow the Board time to attend work
sessions that could not be rescheduled. Upon reconvening, Mr. Hanlon reiterated the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend conditional approval of the request, and the only
conditions the applicant objected to were those that required submittal of certain items prior to the
Sketch Plan phase which seem premature since there are multiple property owners involved. He
referred to the Staff Comments and he agreed that the Comprehensive Plan encourages urban scale
development in and around existing urban areas; however, Weld County did adopt the RUA
regulations, acknowledging there would be exceptions for properties that are in the path of growth, but
not adjacent to an existing urban area. He further stated Master Planned Communities do work without
locating next to a city, and although water and sewer services are not available today, water service is
available at County Road 2, which will be extended in the future, and sewer service will be
accomplished based on the financing of those who decide they want to develop in this RUA. Mr.
Hanlon stated Weld County has adopted provisions for Title 32 Districts and they work. He stated
bonds have not been issued for their District since 2007; however, two bonds were just issued this past
summer, and they do pay their own way without creating an obligation of the general public.
Additionally, the Dry Creek residents will not be able to levy sales tax, and there are other surrounding
developments that may annex to this development that may bring other commercial opportunities in the
future. He stated one other option is the use of Private Improvement Fees (PIFs). Responding further
to Staff's Comments, Mr. Hanlon stated double taxes are a choice and part of everyday life. He stated
Dry Creek will be in close vicinity to many job centers with some having access through light rail. He
stated Staffs Comment concerning the need for this development is not a standard for approval, and
the development will be determined by the market. He stated they opted to use a conservative 30-year
approach, and he noted that this development will keep a valuable water resource in Weld County. He
further stated financing critical water and sewer services is not a standard of approval; however, they
have been successful in Adams County, and they want to be ready to expand when the opportunity
arises. He indicated Todd Creek will keep the water resource in Weld County, and future annexations
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 18 BC0016
would be allowed, and there is also the possibility of incorporation. Mr. Hanlon stated the applicant did
approach the City of Brighton, which declined to annex the site, since it is located across the river. Mr.
Hanlon stated in 2004, the applicant contacted the County and was directed to work with the Cities of
Fort Lupton and Dacono, which they did. He stated it was never their intent to annex, and the current
IGA with Fort Lupton clearly states this is an extraterritorial service area. He referred to the PowerPoint
presentation and indicated this is not urban sprawl, although it is clear that Thornton intends to expand
into Weld County, and the texture of this development will be an island of less urban development as
the surrounding area continues to develop along the 1-25 and 1-76 corridors.
Mr. Hanlon stated there are adequate water resources for future planned growth, and the District
currently serves 4,000 dwelling units. He stated there is also an IGA with the City of Aurora regarding
the purchase of water shares; however, surface water is the District's primary water supply. He stated
the IGA with the City of Fort Lupton will address sewer service; the 208 boundaries are in place; and
the intent of the IGA is to address the needs of an anticipated urban area. He further stated Todd
Creek District has prior experience with coordinating surface use agreements for oil and gas
exploration in and around their developments, including the use of directional drilling and
accommodating the necessary setback requirements to remain compliant with the regulations of the Oil
and Gas industry. He stated they have conducted a professional Market Analysis, and recognize that
there has already been a significant amount of residential development approved in the adjacent Todd
Creek Development.
Nancy Care, representative, referred to the Employment Analysis slide of the presentation, prepared by
the Denver Regional Council of Governments, and stated the red line represents a 30-minute drive time
from the center of the proposed site. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Care stated the red
line also reflects the presence of current infrastructure and demonstrates a reasonable commuting
distance to numerous surrounding employment centers and DIA. In response to Staff Comments, Ms.
Care indicated all of the surrounding transportation corridors improve options for retail and employment
opportunities. She stated Vestas and its suppliers will be major contributors for jobs in the area.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer commented the application materials indicate an estimated population of
19,700 at full buildout, yet only 200 to 300 jobs generated by the development. Responding to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Care stated the jobs created will be in connection with neighborhood
anchor shopping, schools, and community services. She further stated many municipalities do not
have an equal housing to job ratio, and she is uncertain what that amount would be in a community of
this nature.
Mr. Hanlon stated this application meets or exceeds the standards of approval, it proposes a quality
development with a renewable water source, encouraging economic investment, and representing
smart planning for this portion of Weld County. He stated the timing for development will be determined
by future developers, investors and the market, and part of the development process will require
developers to approach Todd Creek for water service which will be negotiated at that time. He stated if
the market supports development, then the financial resources will also be available. He further stated
Real Estate is a function of finance and marketing, which will drive development. Mr. Hanlon reiterated
the proposal is in a good location, but it will be a matter of time before they know when the financial
aspect for development will be feasible. He indicated he did submit a document reflecting minor
modifications to the proposed language for Chapter 26, which primarily address issues with Excel
Energy, and what would be appropriate for buffering. He stated if the Board is not interested in the
changes, he will provide the appropriate response to Excel that it will require an amendment to the RUA
once approved.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon stated he thought the site was within the Mountain
View Fire Protection District; however, he will contact the Fort Lupton Fire Protection District to gain
their input on the matter. Ms. Martin clarified most of the site is in the Greater Brighton Fire Protection
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 19 BC0016
District, with a small portion in the Fort Lupton District north of County Road 6. In response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon confirmed the Fort Lupton Fire Protection District would
require 7.0 mills in addition to the 12.0 mills for the Greater Brighton Fire Protection District, and a site
would be provided. Responding further to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon clarified they did not
create a Metropolitan District; rather, they created an expanded service area. He stated they did
comply with the proper Title 32 notification procedures through Adams County, and although proper
notice was provided in the newspaper, direct notification to property owners in Weld County was not
provided. He further stated the expanded service area is identified in the Fort Lupton IGA which
requires a bulk rate into perpetuity. Responding further to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon stated
Weld County conducted a study of what roads were going to move and they tried to honor that plan,
and currently the only impacted road is Havana, which does not go all the way through.
In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Hanlon stated although the proposal will primarily consist of
residential uses, there will be some employment opportunities related to the neighborhood commercial
centers within the development, as well as the large commercial centers available off-site. He further
stated if there had been more property owners involved with the application, they may have considered
the inclusion of more commercial uses; however, with only 2,000 acres, they felt it would be better to
limit the commercial uses. He stated the RUA boundaries would be allowed to expand, similar to the I-
25 RUA, if approved. Responding to Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Hanson stated the Big Dry Creek is
classified as "Impaired," due to the presence of E. coli and Selenium, and is not fit for recreation. She
stated David Bauer, Department of Public Works, is a member of the Big Dry Creek Watershed
Association which is working to try to mitigate some of the issues. She stated, at staff's request, the
applicant did contact the Watershed Association and is committed to working with them. Mr. Hanlon
stated in time he believes the Big Dry Creek may be an asset. He further stated the applicant did
conduct a preliminary storm drainage study; however, they have not invested in remedy of the Big Dry
Creek at this time.
Responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Hanlon stated if the 100-year floodplain standard increases to a
500-year floodplain there will be alterations to the overall storm drainage plan, as well as impacts on
densities, both in the subject site as well as the entire region. He further stated if Propositions 60
and 61, and Amendment 101 pass in the coming election, this development would still be viable;
however, the financing may need to be modified to suit the market and demand. He stated
Metropolitan Districts will not be the only means affected by those decisions.
Jim Johnson, Texas resident, originally from Weld County, stated he represents nine property owners
who support the application. In response to Commissioners Garcia and Conway, he confirmed they are
all landowners within the RUA.
Gary Howard, area resident, stated he is in favor of the proposal. He stated unlike many other
developed agricultural properties, this is a planned development with planned resources for water and
sewer. He stated he believes it will centralize the services in the area, versus separate property
utilities. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Howard stated there were no wells on the site; the
domestic wells are defunct and Mountain View Water Users Association provides domestic water, with
half of the properties irrigated with surface water.
Carol Howard, area resident, stated she supports the project, and she has lived in the area for more
than 65 years. She stated during that time she has observed that the southern part of Weld County has
been neglected, but this project would be a benefit to the area and she urged approval.
Marla Howard, Estes Park resident, stated she grew up in RUA area but the area has changed and
developed. She stated it is obvious that residential uses would be the highest and best use for the
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 20 BC0016
area, and she would like to sell her land at its highest and best value and use her sales to build a farm
in the mountains.
Carl Zimmerman, Grand Junction resident, stated his wife is a landowner in Weld County and he is a
land owner in Wyoming. He stated they have worked hard to keep their land in agricultural production,
but recent generations have witnessed a lot of changes in agricultural business. He stated growth is a
part of the change that agriculture has to deal with and growth is impacting agriculture in this area of
the County. He further stated farmers have to sell their commodities to stay in business and sometimes
that commodity is land that must be refinanced or sold. He indicated this is an area of continuous
growth, and he appreciates people who plan for the future.
Arlan Marrs, County resident, stated he does not own property in the subject area; however, he is a
landowner in the adjacent area. He stated he supports this project and the concept of making proactive
decisions on how to provide services to the area. He stated the applicant has demonstrated a vision of
growth in the area and that they can provide orderly service in the future. Mr. Marrs stated although
growth has slowed in recent years, this area is still changing rapidly and will continue to increase at
some unknown date in the future. He reviewed the various uses currently in the area, and indicated the
region will need various types of housing. He stated the applicant did a quality job in developing the
Todd Creek community, Vestas will be creating jobs in the area, and the subject site will have sewer
treatment service provided under the IGA with the City of Fort Lupton. He stated the only issue left to
consider is whether the water will eventually be sold if this proposal does not move forward. He stated
if the water resource is lost, this land will not be eligible for development and will become a blighted
area. Mr. Marrs stated Weld County must be on the leading edge when looking ahead and considering
its land and water resources so that they may be put to the best use.
Mary Falconbert, Community Development Director for the City of Brighton, stated the applicant has
been good to work with. He confirmed they contacted the City of Brighton which indicated it did not
want to develop in the subject area, preferring a buffer between the City of Thornton. He stated the
City of Brighton did enter into an IGA with Todd Creek for one unit per acre, and it is a good
development and they have been a good neighbor. He further stated, if approved, the City will be
requesting an IGA that limits the density. Mr. Falconbert indicated he has worked with Mr. Hanlon and
Roger Holland in the past and they have been honest in their previous dealings, and County staff has
also been very helpful. He stated the City of Brighton fully supports the owners' property rights,
development in the area, and Fort Lupton's IGA for extraterritorial sewer treatment for the project;
however, they do not support annexation. He further stated the City of Brighton did submit a Resolution
outlining its concerns and their preference would be to see a more rural density or clustering of
development. Mr. Falconbert indicated the City of Brighton has found Metropolitan Districts to be a
good way to finance development; however, the two drawbacks are that sometimes the residents are
not aware of the costs for owning property in the development and it can be difficult to contact the
Metro District board if there are issues of concern to be addressed. He stated this area is in the path of
growth and it does not make sense to leave it undeveloped. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Falconbert stated the market is not ripe for development at this point; however, there is nothing
wrong with doing the preparation work and there is no bonded indebtedness at this time. He stated the
City of Brighton has a population of approximately 35,000 people, with approximately 10,000 jobs within
the City. Responding further to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Falconbert stated he is not the financial
representative of the City and could not address her question regarding the overlapping mill levy for the
City residents. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Falconbert stated the City of Brighton would
be agreeable to allowing one residential unit per acre, and although they have talked with the developer
about that idea, they have indicated that request is not financially feasible for the necessary
infrastructure.
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 21 BC0016
Mr. Hanlon stated he appreciates Brighton's comments and they will strive to continue working
together. He stated Todd Creek is working to develop a portion of the area through a Metropolitan
District in an effort to address problems of individual septic systems. He stated central sewer is not
efficient unless there are densities of 2-3.5 units per acre. He stated the gravity line to Fort Lupton will
cost between $4-5 million. He indicated they do not want to utilize septic systems; however, sanitary
sewer does require the applicant to address the issue of economics. He further stated Sakata Farms
will serve as an agricultural buffer between the City of Brighton and this RUA, they have met with
Brighton, and any remaining issues will hopefully be resolved. In response to Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon stated the Mountain View Water Users Association has lines in existence within
the Todd Creek Service Area and any inquiries to connect to those lines are directed to Mountain View.
He stated they did meet with the Town of Wattenburg, although they are not within the RUA, at the
direction of the City of Fort Lupton. He stated their biggest concern was impact to their groundwater
supply. He reiterated the primary source of water is surface water. Responding further to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon stated the service plan would include Wattenburg because the
service plan matches the 208 boundary filed for by the City of Fort Lupton, and they would consider
service to Wattenburg if they requested it. He stated the Service Plan was expanded; however, the
Financial Plan did not require an amendment. He further stated they did meet with the County Attorney
and Weld County was provided notice of the expansion. He explained the District is domiciled in
Adams County; therefore, the application was filed with that entity, and Weld County was afforded the
opportunity to comment. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Barker stated the statute deals
with the expansion of the District, not the service area; only district expansion requires approval of the
Board of County Commissioners of the County being expanded into. Mr. Hanlon reiterated Todd Creek
does not charge a mill levy; they are a revenue district. Responding further to Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon stated if a property owner is not in the RUA, but within the designated service
area, and they intend to develop their property, they would have to contact the City of Fort Lupton and
the District to obtain sewer service, and he provided an example for the record. He explained that
although there is a designated service area, property owners may use other means of service if agreed
to by the Board of Commissioners when considering their application for development. He further
stated when the IGA was originally approved, the City of Fort Lupton was not aware that Northglenn
had expanded its 208 boundary, and rather than negotiating a tri-party agreement, they moved the 208
and the service area so they no longer overlap with that of Northglenn. He agreed the IGA is still in
need of revisions to reflect the current boundaries which are represented in the RUA application.
Commissioner Long stated he is intrigued with the idea, and when considering development he is
always looking for how it will benefit Weld County. In this instance he believes this will keep water in
Weld County and develop the area in an organized fashion. He stated he has witnessed as cities have
grown together and it often results in internal wars. Commission Long indicated this proposal provides
an opportunity for organized growth in area north of Denver and that is ripe for development. He
acknowledged that it consists of a small footprint of 2,000 acres, and there is opportunity for other
industrial and commercial ventures in the surrounding area. He noted that he has not heard much
testimony in opposition, with the exception of a couple of letters that have been entered into the record.
Based on those comments, Commissioner Long stated he is in support of the request on First Reading.
Commissioner Garcia agreed, since the County will be seeing development in this area anyway. He
would prefer orderly development, versus urban sprawl and the lack of communication; therefore, he
believes that the idea of creating an RUA at this point is a good idea. He encouraged all involved to
consider the water quality of Big Dry Creek as previously discussed.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she does not support this proposal. She referenced the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan and indicated there is a requirement for a Statement of Need. She questioned
whether there is a need when there are 22,000 housing units open in Weld County and an additional
69,700 units available in Adams County. She stated the City of Brighton representative indicated it is in
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 22 BC0016
the path of development; however, it is not ripe for development at this time, and she believes when it is
appropriate for development they should be required to annex. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated County
staff recommends against the request for various reasons, including the requirement for the creation of
jobs, and in this case, the creation of 200 to 600 jobs is not adequate. She stated she did attend the
three community meetings and there was a lot of opposition expressed and there are holes in the RUA
representing property owners who did not support the request. She further stated the Finance Director
advises against the request, regardless of whether certain items pass during the upcoming election,
because it is not viable with the additional mill levies that will still not provide for the law enforcement
services, safety services and transportation. She also referenced Mr. Warden's concerns regarding the
lack of mixed uses and decreased assessed value. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated the School
District still had questions regarding where the schools will be because the existing schools are already
crowded, and the additional impacts to the schools is another expense that will be borne by the other
residents in the school district and the state. She further stated there is a cap of 50 mills, and there will
be additional mill levies for the Fire Protection Districts and Law Enforcement Districts. She further
stated the State Engineer's Office has indicated they have been unable to verify a viable water source,
and she does not believe preserving water is a viable reason for approval in exchange for all of the
services that cannot be provided. She stated the Cities of Brighton, Dacono, and Fort Lupton all have
some concerns, and the City of Thornton has expressed it conflicts with their IGA and the expansion of
services of Todd Creek. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated locating a population of 20,000 people out in
the country is urban sprawl, and if the area is ripe for development the property owners should go
through the annexation process for planned development. She stated contrary to the applicant's
assertion, the Comprehensive Plan does require the submittal of traffic studies and drainage reports as
part of the RUA application process. She stated this proposal will create a municipality without any
jobs, and it will cost Weld County. She further stated Jefferson, El Paso, and Douglas Counties have
all learned the hard way that Metropolitan Districts do not pay for their own way and residents are not
provided the same services as those within a municipality. Based on those comments Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated she is not in favor of the proposal.
Commissioner Conway stated he has really struggled with his decision because all of the previous
comments are valid. He stated, in 2007, Weld County spent three days to discuss long term growth
and development in Weld County. He stated they displayed a map that shows the inevitable growth in
southern Weld County; however, it is astonishing to acknowledge the 69,500 units currently available in
Adams County and the 22,000 units currently available in Weld County. He stated this is the first
reading on the matter and he would like to go back and look at some of the questions and testimony
provided. He agreed that the area is not ready for development right now, but in five to ten years it may
be, and he wants to look at how the area may evolve. Commissioner Conway reiterated future growth
is coming as an extension of the growth that has already occurred in southern Weld County.
Chair Rademacher stated there are valid points on both sides of the issue. He supports private
property rights and acknowledged that the area is in the path of growth. He stated he is in agriculture
and fully understands the personal need to sell little bits of land to remain in agriculture. Chair
Rademacher stated Commissioner Kirkmeyer raises some very valid points that need to be addressed
prior to the next reading; however, he stated he will support this matter on First Reading.
Commissioner Long moved to approve Code Ordinance #2010-1 on first reading. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Garcia. Conway stated he appreciates the various staff recommendations;
however, he also acknowledged that the Planning Commission did vote unanimously to recommend
approval. Commissioner Long stated the time is right for this lengthy part of the process in preparation
for development in the future. Commissioner Conway also thanked all of those in attendance who
accommodated the Board's complicated schedule. Upon a call for the vote, the motion carried four to
one, with Commissioner Kirkmeyer opposed.
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 23 BC0016
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. Ordinances #2010-8 and 2010-4 were approved on final reading, Ordinance#2010-6
was approved on second reading, and Ordinance#2010-1 was 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.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Eli,
ATTEST: •
t ?-
' y,. ou s Rader cher, C it
Weld County Clerk to the :qa . O,-Q1.'
BY: COQ
(� � A o bara Kirkmeyer, P o-Tem
/� ��I I ,�.,. .�`�� /�
Deputy Clerk to the Boar:�� �� per------
Sean P. o ay ��
iW IIYam )1 c
' . Gar
� °L.\
�
Davit . Long
Minutes, July 12, 2010 2010-1492
Page 24 BC0016
Hello