HomeMy WebLinkAbout20102515.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
OCTOBER 20, 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, October 20, 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 — EXCUSED
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long — EXCUSED
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Elizabeth Strong
Director of Finance and Administration, Monica Mika
MINUTES: Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of October 18, 2010, as printed. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion,
and it 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 Garcia seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: Commissioner Conway stated the Air Quality Control
Commission is trying to bend the rules again, and the Board of County Commissioners will be sending
a formal letter regarding the matter. He indicated the Air Quality Control Commission does not believe
it needs to start the Rule Making Hearing process over again; however, it made 12 errors in its Rule
Making Hearing last March, and it is conducting an emergency meeting tomorrow to correct six (6) of
the mistakes. He stated the amendments which will be made at the emergency meeting will make the
Emissions Program stricter. Commissioner Conway stated the Emissions Program will commence
November 1, 2010, and the remaining six (6) items will be addressed at a meeting during January,
2011, which will make the Emissions Program less strict. He clarified the cars in Larimer and Weld
Counties will require a lower reading to pass the emissions testing, in comparison to other Counties in
the Denver Metropolitan area. He indicated the Air Quality Control Commission is implementing the
Emissions Program over two (2) years because it would overwhelm the system if it was implemented all
at once; however, the Program is supposed to be ready to implement as of November 1, 2010. He
\0
Minutes, October 20, 2010 2010-2515
Page 1 BC0016
indicated the Rule Making Hearing was sloppy and the Chairperson, Jon Slutsky, was biased, since he
resides in the Town of Wellington, which is outside of the testing area boundaries, and Mr. Slutsky will
not be required to have his vehicles tested. Commissioner Conway stated he finds the matter
outrageous, and he is proud the Board is going to send a letter to the Air Quality Control Commission
regarding the matter. He stated Tom Donnelly, Larimer County Commissioner, indicated he will be
sending a letter to the Air Quality Control Commission, and the Mayor of the City of Greeley indicated
he will be sending a letter as well. He stated the Air Quality Control Commission needs to do the right
thing, which is to postpone the Emissions Program until next year, and to conduct another Rule Making
Hearing in January, 2011. He indicated 12 errors is a significant number, and the Air Quality Control
Commission has been highly inconsistent, with a pattern of reprehensible and outlandish behavior.
BIDS:
PRESENT BID #61000150, 150TH ANNIVERSARY PROMOTIONAL ITEMS - DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE: Glen Czaplewski, Weld County Intern, provided the Board with some sample products from
each of the three (3) vendors that submitted a bid, and he indicated these are promotional items for the
County's 150th Anniversary. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Czaplewski indicated there is a
sample of a lapel pin among the items he provided to the Board, and he finds it to be of good quality.
He indicated staff contacted 11 companies to submit bids, four (4) of which are local vendors; however
only three (3) vendors submitted bids, none of which are local. He indicated he believes the reason no
local vendors submitted bids is because the vendors were unable to meet the website requirements;
however, he is also unsure as to whether the vendors who submitted bids can meet the website
requirements. Mr. Czaplewski stated he spoke to one of the potential local vendors that indicated they
were unable to fulfill the website provision, and another local vendor indicated the same to Rose
Everett, Purchasing. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Czapleski stated there is adequate time
remaining for the Board to reject the bid, since none of the vendors submitted complete bids. He
indicated that since none of the vendors can fully meet the requirements of the bid, staff can rebid the
project, with altered bid specifications. He stated there are existing online services which can be
utilized to accommodate people who would like to purchase baseball caps or mugs with the Weld
County 150th Anniversary logo. Chair Rademacher stated this matter was discussed last night at the
150th Anniversary Committee meeting and the Committee indicated it wants to award this bid to a local
vendor, and if the website is the hang-up, perhaps the website should be addressed through the
governance process. Commissioner Conway encouraged Mr. Czaplewski to contact the local
Chambers of Commerce regarding the matter, and he indicated the Chambers of Commerce may
provide blurbs in the newsletters, to notify people of the opportunity. Commissioner Garcia inquired as
to whether it is appropriate to reject the bid at this point in the process, since it was only being
presented today and it was not scheduled for Board action.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, deferred to Monica Mika, Director of Finance and Administration, on the
matter. Ms. Mika indicated there have been other occasions the Board has rejected a bid at this point
in the process, when it was clear none of the vendors met the intent of the bid. She stated she would
prefer the bid be rejected at this point, as opposed to being continued, due to the time constraints. She
indicated she will contact the vendors that submitted bids, in order to explain the circumstances, and
she recommended the promotional products and the website be separated into two (2) different
projects which are separately bid out. Ms. Mika stated the normal bidding process does not entail
contacting the local Chambers of Commerce; however, she can contact the Chambers of Commerce
for potential vendor notification lists. She recommended against sending anything to the Chambers of
Commerce, since the County may inadvertently fail to notify all the Chambers of Commerce.
Mr. Czaplewski concurred with Ms. Mika's recommendation to reject the bid, and indicated he can
present the modified bids to the Board in the near future. Chair Rademacher indicated he is concerned
about the turn-around time for the promotional products, since the 150th Anniversary will commence in
January. Mr. Czaplewski stated most of the vendors have indicated a turn-around time of
approximately three (3) to four (4) weeks; therefore, there is a brief amount of time remaining to restart
Minutes, October 20, 2010 2010-2515
Page 2 BC0016
the bid process. Commissioner Garcia moved to reject the bid, based on staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Conway seconded the motion, and he thanked Mr. Czaplewski for his hard work. He
encouraged Mr. Czaplewski to divide the components of the bid, as recommended by Ms. Mika.
Mr. Czaplewski confirmed he intends to separate the website component from the rest of the bid.
There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
CONSIDER NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR UPGRADE AND MAINTENANCE OF
CR 128 AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - SLAWSON EXPLORATION COMPANY, INC. (ROCKY
MOUNTAIN DIVISION) (CON'T FROM 10/13/10): Donald Carroll, Department of Public Works,
submitted two (2) maps into the record, one (1) marked Exhibit F, for this item of business, and one (1)
marked Exhibit D, for the following item of business. He stated this agreement is for the Gold Digger
site in Section 16, for three (3) miles from County Road 37 to County Road 43, and the Section Line is
County Road 128. He stated a Petition has been submitted to the Department to open the County
Road 128 right-of-way, in the southwest corner of Section 18, for five (5) miles to the east. He stated
there is 60 feet of documented County right-of-way on this Section Line. Mr. Carroll indicated he spoke
to Frank "Bud" Horton, the adjacent property owner, and he invited him to the hearing today; however,
he does not see well and his daughter, who resides in Cheyenne, Wyoming, drives for Mr. Horton when
he needs to travel. He indicated Mr. Horton owns property on both sides of County Road 128, and
Mr. Horton relayed three (3) items he is concerned about: he would like to have a cattle guard and a
small section of fence installed with a gate; he requested a speed limit sign be installed to restrict the
speed in front of his home to 15 M.P.H., in order to protect his dogs and cats; and he would like dust
control measures to be taken for the area in front of his house. He indicated Kevin Anderson, Western
Land Services, and Kalen Bauer, Rocky Mountain Permitting, are both present. Chair Rademacher
stated he does not see a problem with any of the three (3) requests Mr. Horton has made, and he
inquired as to whether there are cattle guards on any County Roads. Mr. Carroll stated there are
approximately 250 cattle guards, some of which are located on public roads; however, this cattle guard
will likely be privately maintained by Slawson Exploration Company, Inc.; it would not be maintained by
the County, even though it is located on a public road.
Mr. Anderson stated he has been working with several adjacent property owners regarding this and the
following agreement, and he spoke to Mr. Horton on the telephone several times and he met with him
at his home on Monday. He stated Mr. Horton conveyed the same three (3) concerns to him. He
clarified Mr. Horton has a wire gate which must be opened and closed to access the Wagners' property,
and there is an existing cattle guard on the Wagners' property approximately 20 or 30 yards away from
the wire gate; therefore, if a cattle guard is installed on the Hortons' property, cattle can be moved to
the corrals in between the cattle guards.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Bauer stated she attended the meeting last week, to represent
Rocky Mountain Permitting, which is one (1) of the permitting agents for Slawson Exploration
Company, Inc. She indicated the function of Rocky Mountain Permitting is to prepare applications for
Colorado oil and gas permits to drill and applications for County rights-of-way, and preparing the permit
applications is the extent to which Rocky Mountain Permitting is involved in this matter. In response to
Chair Rademacher, Mr. Anderson confirmed Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., will be responsible
for installing the proposed cattle guard, and water will be utilized for dust control. He indicated Slawson
Exploration Company, Inc., is attempting to spud both this well and the well the following agreement is
concerning, in order to hold the lease, prior to the expiration date, and once the wells are spudded,
there will be another year for Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., to decide the details on how to
access the well sites. He stated at this time Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., anticipates obtaining
a lease extension from the State Mineral Board; however, it is not certain whether or not the extension
will be granted; therefore Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., would like to proceed with the County's
process to request the use of both of the County rights-of-way. In response to Chair Rademacher,
Minutes, October 20, 2010 2010-2515
Page 3 BC0016
Mr. Carroll stated if the Board chooses to place the speed limit sign on the road, it will require Board
action. Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Carroll stated the road will likely be brought up to
an all-weather surface standard; however, not necessarily up to County Road standards. Chair
Rademacher indicated he is concerned about how a 15 M.P.H. speed limit would be enforced.
Mr. Carroll stated 15 M.P.H. is the speed limit posted in the County's gravel operations, to limit dust,
and Mr. Horton's house is very close to the road and he wants to limit the speed in front of his house.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Barker indicated the 15 M.P.H. speed limit is not enforceable;
the Weld County Sheriffs Office does not enforce road rights-of-way which are not publicly maintained.
He stated there is typically not any speed limit restriction included in nonexclusive license agreements,
and he suggested a warning sign be placed on the road instead, to advise motorists to maintain a low
speed due to the condition of the road. Chair Rademacher indicated he is in favor of whichever sign
will be the most effective in limiting the speed in front of Mr. Horton's house. Commissioner Conway
inquired as to whether a warning sign, as opposed to a speed limit sign, will address Mr. Horton's
concerns. Mr. Carroll stated Mr. Horton simply indicated the trucks are traveling by the area very
quickly and he would like the trucks to be slowed down, and Mr. Carroll indicated either type of sign will
serve the intended purpose. Chair Rademacher stated he does not have a preference; however, the
warning sign might be more applicable. Mr. Barker reiterated a speed limit is not enforceable, and he
stated there are many other citizens who would like speed limit signs posted for similar circumstances;
therefore, the Board may receive many other requests for speed limit signs to be installed if this request
is approved. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Barker confirmed his recommendation is to place a
warning sign on the road, as opposed to a speed limit sign. Chair Rademacher inquired as to what
language should appear on the warning sign. Commissioner Garcia indicated Mr. Carroll will determine
the best language for the sign. Ms. Mika stated she is concerned about consistency, and she inquired
as to whether the Board is going to make signs optional for all the property owners in these situations
and as to whether the County will be paying the cost for the signs. Chair Rademacher inquired as to
how the situation was handled before and as to whether signs were provided in the past. Mr. Barker
indicated the County has not provided signs on non-County maintained road rights-of-way before, and
the intent of the nonexclusive license agreement is for the party utilizing the right-of-way to pay the
expense of maintaining the right-of-way. He stated the Sheriff's Office does not have the ability to
provide enforcement for the right-of-way; therefore, it would be best to have Slawson Exploration
Company, Inc., pay for the sign, and warning signs can be placed on the right-of-way without the
Board's approval. He clarified speed limit and Stop signs require the Board's approval. Mr. Anderson
inquired as to what the language on the sign should be. Ms. Mika suggested the language for the
proposed sign be provided to the Department of Public Works before the sign is installed, to make sure
the staff is comfortable with the language. Mr. Anderson indicated he will provide the proposed
language to the Department of Public Works in advance of a sign being placed. Chair Rademacher
gave the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was provided. Commissioner Garcia moved
to approve said agreement, with the aforementioned cattle guard, dust control, and warning sign, all of
which will be provided at the expense of Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., and to authorize the Chair
to sign said agreement. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR UPGRADE AND MAINTENANCE OF
CR 116 AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - SLAWSON EXPLORATION COMPANY, INC. (ROCKY
MOUNTAIN DIVISION) (CON'T FROM 10/13/10): Mr. Carroll stated this agreement is for the Glory
Hole site, which is located in Section 16, and he indicated an aerial view of Larry Hoffner's ranch
property can be observed on Exhibit D. He stated the agreement is for use of the County Road 116
Section Line, for one (1) mile, between County Roads 43 and 45, and between Sections 15 and 22. He
stated the County has 30 feet of right-of-way in Section 22; however, the right-of-way travels through
the property Mr. Hoffner has in the Colorado Reserve Program (CRP). Mr. Carroll stated other ways to
access Section 16 have been examined, including accessing Section 16 between Sections 21 and 22,
up from County Road 114, and Mr. Hoffner would like Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., to access
Section 16 from between Sections 20 and 21. He stated there is an existing road in Section 16, which
Minutes, October 20, 2010 2010-2515
Page 4 BC0016
has been utilized to access the windmill, and the County has 30 feet of right-of-way in Section 20,
which is owned by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). In response to Chair
Rademacher, Mr. Carroll indicated some of the USDA property in this area is operated by the
U.S. Forest Service and some of it is operated by the USDA experimental station. Further responding
to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Carroll reiterated the County has right-of-way in Section 20; however,
Section 21 is a railroad Section, with no County right-of-way, and the County has right-of-way in the
north portion of Section 22. Chair Rademacher inquired as to what Mr. Carroll's recommendation is.
Mr. Carroll indicated the cleanest access route, to avoid impacting Mr. Hoffner, would be to access
Section 16 from between Section 20 and 21. Mr. Anderson indicated the route Slawson Exploration
Company, Inc., would like to access Section 16 from is between Sections 21 and 22, traveling north
and south from County Road 114, and he views it as the only option available to access the location,
since the County right-of-way on the east Section Line of Section 20 is adjacent to USDA Central Plains
Experiment Range surface, which does not allow anyone to access the area. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Mr. Carroll clarified there are three (3) options available to access Section 16: 1) access
it from in between Sections 15 and 22, for one (1) mile; there is 30 feet of County right-of-way in
Section 22, which crosses the property in the CRP; 2) access it from in between Sections 21 and 22;
there is 60 feet of right-of-way traveling north from County Road 114; or 3) access it from between
Sections 20 and 21; utilizing the existing road to the windmill. He stated there are some hill and erosion
problems with the proposed access between Sections 20 and 21, and staff is confident with the
establishment of the County right-of-way in Section 20, per the 1889 Resolution; however, if Slawson
Exploration Company, Inc., chooses to utilize the right-of-way in Section 20, the USDA will probably
require a higher standard of road to be constructed. He stated that Mr. Anderson indicated the USDA
will not allow the utilization of the County right-of-way; however, he believes the County's right-of-way
predated the USDA's right-of-way. Mr. Carroll indicated his experience in working with the USDA in
similar situations has been that the USDA first ensures the County is comfortable with a proposed
access route, and then the USDA deals with the petitioner regarding the improvements it will require.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Carroll reiterated his recommendation is the third option, since it
has the least impact to Mr. Hoffner's property. Commissioner Garcia inquired as to whether the County
has any right-of-way along County Road 118 which may be utilized. Mr. Carroll stated he did not
research any options that far north. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Carroll stated the County
does not have right-of-way in Section 15, since it is railroad right-of-way, or Section 16, since the State
controls the right-of-way there. He stated there is also no County right-of-way in Section 9; however,
there may be County right-of-way in Section 10. Chair Rademacher inquired as to whether County
Road 41 exists north of County Road 114. Mr. Carroll stated there is a road traveling north of County
Road 41 from County Road 114; however, he believes the road ends at the windmill. Chair
Rademacher inquired as to whether there is any existing County Road 118 right-of-way in the area.
Mr. Carroll reiterated he did not research that; however, if there is any County right-of-way in the area,
he would guess it would be 30 feet of right-of-way within Section 10. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Mr. Anderson clarified the preferred route for Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., is the
second option Mr. Carroll mentioned. Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Anderson stated
the third option Mr. Carroll mentioned will not work for two (2) reasons; it will take too long for Slawson
Exploration Company, Inc., to obtain a permit from the USDA, and Slawson Exploration Company, Inc.,
will still need access into Section 16 through Mr. Hoffner's property. In response to Chair Rademacher,
Mr. Barker stated the timeline for obtaining a permit from the USDA depends on which agency is being
dealt with, and the U.S. Forest Service has a permitting process; however, other USDA agencies may
not require a permit. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Carroll confirmed there is 30 feet of
County right-of-way between Sections 20 and 21. Chair Rademacher inquired as to whether there is a
way to place all 60 feet of right-of-way in Section 21, as opposed to splitting the right-of-way on either
side of the Section Line.
Mr. Hoffner indicated there is an existing road between Sections 20 and 21 which has been utilized to
maintain the windmill, repair fences, and transport livestock for 43 years. Chair Rademacher inquired
Minutes, October 20, 2010 2010-2515
Page 5 BC0016
as to whether the existing road is entirely on Mr. Hoffner's property or whether the road crosses the
property line. Mr. Hoffner stated he is not a surveyor; however, when the road is utilized, people travel
directly to the pasture; therefore, there is no fence marking the Section Line. He indicated there is a
fence located to the west; however, the road provides a direct route to the pasture. In response to
Chair Rademacher, Mr. Hoffner indicated the existing road is wide enough to accommodate trucks and
trailers. Chair Rademacher inquired as to whether Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., would be
required to bring the road up to County standards. Mr. Carroll indicated the County does not typically
require the right-of-way to be brought up to County standards in nonexclusive license agreements;
however, an all-weather type road is required, and the oil and gas companies typically improve existing
right-of-way conditions, in order to be able to safely transport the equipment. Chair Rademacher
inquired as to whether the existing road will provide sufficient access to the site, without requiring
access on the USDA property, and he inquired as to whether Mr. Hoffner would allow the existing
roadway to be widened if it is necessary. Mr. Carroll stated if Slawson Exploration Company, Inc.,
utilizes the right-of-way in Section 20, it will be required to follow the USDA's permitting process. In
response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Carroll confirmed a survey will need to be completed to determine
whether the existing road is on the USDA property, and Ms. Bauer confirmed a survey has not been
completed for the existing road. Mr. Anderson clarified a survey has not been completed for the
existing road, since Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., has not petitioned that particular road.
Ms. Bauer stated Mr. Anderson mentioned the permitting process with the Federal government is a
lengthy process, and she clarified the process can take several months. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Ms. Bauer stated the area south of the Section Line between Sections 15 and 22 has
been surveyed. Responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Hoffner indicated in the year 1983 Section 22
became farmland under a conservation plan, excluding the hills, and a 30 to 50-foot pad was left along
the fence line from County Road 116 to County Road 114. He stated in the year 1997, the
Conservation Reserve Program admitted Section 22, after it was terraced, which was required due to
the type of soil. He stated the soil is "sugar sand", and he provided soil samples at the previous
hearing. Mr. Hoffner stated if the pad is torn up, it will create watershed problems, particularly in the
gulley. He indicated there is a 100-foot difference in the altitude between County Road 114 and the top
of the hill, and the area in red on the topographical map he submitted at the previous hearing, marked
Exhibit C, is a gulley. He indicated he submitted a photograph of County Road 114 at the last hearing,
which is the last page of Exhibit C, to demonstrate what will happen if a road is placed in the CRP area.
Mr. Hoffner stated if the road travels through the CRP area, the Federal government can request the
money it provided to him during the previous years be returned. He stated in order to utilize County
Road 45 west to the Section Line, two (2) or three (3) culverts will need to be installed. Chair
Rademacher inquired as to whether Mr. Hoffner is willing to have the existing road widened, or moved
onto his property if the survey determines it is not currently on his property, in order to avoid the County
right-of-way from being utilized through the middle of the CRP area. Mr. Hoffner indicated he would be
willing to work with Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., regarding the existing road; however, it would
need to replace the existing fence. Chair Rademacher stated it is important to have the existing road
surveyed, to determine which property it is on, and if the road is entirely on the USDA property, it would
need to be shifted onto Mr. Hoffner's property. Mr. Hoffner indicated representatives from Slawson
Exploration Company, Inc., began calling him early last spring and he explained the situation at this
time; however, now Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., wants to rush through this process and ruin
his operation, which he finds inappropriate. Chair Rademacher concurred with Mr. Hoffner and he
indicated he is leaning towards supporting the third option Mr. Carroll mentioned. Chair Rademacher
inquired as to whether Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., can make the third option work, since
Mr. Hoffner is willing to donate land for its benefit. Mr. Anderson indicated he is unsure as to whether
the third option Mr. Carroll described will work, based on the timeframe Slawson Exploration Company,
Inc., is working with. He inquired as to how Slawson will proceed if a survey determines the existing
road is on Mr. Hoffner's property, or it needs to be moved onto Mr. Hoffner's property, since there is no
County right-of-way within this Section of Mr. Hoffner's property. In response to Chair Rademacher,
Ms. Bauer clarified there is 30 feet of County right-of-way in Section 20; not Section 21. Responding to
Minutes, October 20, 2010 2010-2515
Page 6 BC0016
Chair Rademacher, Mr. Carroll confirmed there is 30 feet of County right-of-way within Section 20,
which is USDA property. Chair Rademacher inquired as to whether a permitting process with the
Federal government is necessary, even though there is existing County road right-of-way in the
Section. Ms. Bauer stated a permit process is still required by the Federal government, and Mr. Barker
concurred. Responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Barker indicated this situation occurs throughout the
area, where the Federal government owns properties. He stated Slawson Exploration Company, Inc.,
has the right to utilize existing County public road rights-of-way at any time, and the nonexclusive
license agreement simply licenses Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., to maintain the roadway, in a
fashion which is suitable for the public use; however, the Federal government may take the position a
Federal permit is necessary. He stated the County has never taken the position that it is the County's
responsibility to deal with the Federal permitting process, with respect to the public utilizing the
right-of-way. Chair Rademacher inquired as to whether the County can indicate it supports the use of
the right-of-way. Mr. Barker stated the Board can lend its support in any situation. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Mr. Barker stated the Board's support may make a difference in this situation, and he
concurred with Chair Rademacher that the Board has developed a good working relationship with the
U.S. Forest Service. He stated he has never seen a Board of County Commissioners negotiate the
way the Board did today regarding a nonexclusive license agreement; it was above and beyond what is
normally provided by the Board in these types of situations, and he thinks the Federal government
would appreciate it. He indicated that he hopes Mr. Hoffner understands this is atypical, and the Board
is striving to accommodate the involved parties and it had the time available to discuss the matter in
detail today. Chair Rademacher implored Ms. Bauer and Mr. Anderson to work with Mr. Hoffner to
make the third option work, and he stated a survey may not be necessary, since the road is a public
right-of-way which is already being utilized. Mr. Barker stated Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., can
utilize the right of way, without a nonexclusive license agreement, and if the landowner refuses access,
Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., can pursue an injunction and an order in court, to affirm its right to
be there; however, the purpose of the nonexclusive license agreement is to assist in constructing a
roadway which will work for everyone. Chair Rademacher inquired as to whether the appropriate
motion would be to reject the agreement for County Road 116 and allow Slawson Exploration
Company, Inc., to petition another roadway. Mr. Barker indicated Slawson Exploration Company, Inc.,
could agree to make the proposed modification to the agreement. In response to Chair Rademacher,
Mr. Barker stated the Board could approve the modified agreement today, and then Slawson
Exploration Company, Inc., would have to agree to the license agreement. In response to Ms. Bauer,
Mr. Hoffner confirmed the issue with the second option that Mr. Carroll explained is the CRP land in
Section 22, and there is no CRP land in Section 21; however, the largest watershed exists in Section
21 for a distance of approximately three-quarters of a mile. He indicated that if a road is constructed in
Section 21, there will be flooding issues all along the road, no matter how many culverts are installed,
due to the altitude, and he will lose 13 years worth of seeding on his property. Chair Rademacher
indicated mitigation would be necessary for the run-off water, which is expensive and time consuming;
however, it is possible. Mr. Anderson indicated Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., would like to
proceed with accessing Section 16 from between Sections 21 and 22, in order to be able to spud the
new well, which will be a four (4) to six (6) day operation, and then it could be up to a year before the
horizontal well is drilled. He indicated that if the initial access is approved, Slawson Exploration
Company, Inc., would then apply for a permit from the USDA and work with Mr. Hoffner to jump the
northwest corner of Section 21. He stated he views this as the only option for Slawson Exploration
Company, Inc., to complete what it needs to. Chair Rademacher stated Slawson Exploration
Company, Inc., can access Section 16 from between Sections 20 and 21 also, since there is existing
access there. Mr. Anderson stated he believes the grazing lessee is accessing that road; however, the
USDA, or Mr. Hoffner, might sue Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., if it jumps the corner and
accesses the road. Chair Rademacher indicated Mr. Hoffner will not sue, since he is participating in the
agreement, and he inquired as to whether there is an existing road between Sections 20 and 21.
Mr. Hoffner confirmed there is an existing road between 20 and 21. In response to Chair Rademacher,
Mr. Hoffner clarified there is no existing access between 21 and 22; just a four (4) wheeler trail he
Minutes, October 20, 2010 2010-2515
Page 7 BC0016
utilizes to tend to his cattle. Chair Rademacher stated it will cost a lot more money to bring that trail up
to standards than the existing access between Sections 20 and 21. He stated he is confused on
Mr. Anderson's position, since the USDA may never contest Slawson Exploration, Inc., using the road.
Mr. Anderson indicated he spoke to a USDA representative this week who told him the USDA does not
allow right-of-way on the experimental range. Chair Rademacher stated the USDA cannot deny the
right-of-way since it is a public road. Mr. Barker clarified Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., does
need to apply for the Federal government's permit, and the USDA can deny the application and prevent
access. He stated the County does not have any way to prevent the road from being utilized, unless
the road is vacated, since it is a public right-of-way; however, the Federal government takes the
position it can require a permit. Responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Barker reiterated the Federal
government can require a permit, even for a County right-of-way. He stated there are many County
rights-of-way on Federal lands, and the Federal government could take the position that the County
should maintain those rights-of-way; therefore, if the Board takes the position that there is a road
right-of-way that needs to be enforced, the Federal government could direct the County to maintain the
road. Chair Rademacher reiterated it is unknown whether the existing road is on Federal land or
Mr. Hoffner's property, since it has not been surveyed. Mr. Barker indicated if the Board approves the
agreement, a survey needs to be completed, which Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., will be
responsible for completing. Responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Hoffner reiterated a representative
from Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., contacted him regarding this matter early in the spring, and
he informed the representative there is an existing access to the windmill. He stated Section 16 has
never been landlocked, and the existing road has been utilized to haul livestock. He indicated there is
a gate on the southeast corner which leads to a service road the U.S. Forest Service utilizes to conduct
research, and he has observed cowboys utilizing the service road on horseback. Chair Rademacher
stated it is also unknown whether the service road is on the USDA property, or Mr. Hoffner's property.
Chair Rademacher inquired as to how long it typically takes for an area to be surveyed. Ms. Bauer
indicated a surveyor could probably be provided this week. She stated the surveyor Rocky Mountain
Permitting utilizes is based out of the City of Lafayette, and if she made the request today, the surveyor
may be able to complete the survey as soon as tomorrow. Chair Rademacher indicated another
continuation may be necessary, in order to allow time for a survey to be conducted, since it is unclear
whether the existing road is on the USDA property, or Mr. Hoffner's property. He stated if the road is
on Mr. Hoffner's property, he has given permission for Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., to utilize the
road, and if it is on the USDA property the Board can discuss the matter with the U.S. Forest Service.
He indicated he is meeting with Lori Bell from the U.S. Forest Service this week, and he can discuss
the matter with her at that time. Mr. Hoffner indicated Justin Derner is the head of the USDA research.
Chair Rademacher indicated he will still mention the matter to Ms. Bell at their meeting, although she
may not be able to assist in this matter, and he reiterated he would prefer to proceed with the survey, to
determine which property the road is on. Commissioner Garcia concurred with Chair Rademacher that
the access between Sections 20 and 21 seems to make the most sense; however, he is not willing to
vote to deny the nonexclusive license agreement for County Road 116 at this time. He indicated there
are still some areas to explore, and appreciates the efforts of Slawson Exploration Company, Inc.,
Rocky Mountain Permitting, and Western Land Services to develop a plan to proceed on this matter. In
response to Commissioner Garcia, Commissioner Conway confirmed when this matter was continued
at the last hearing, the Board did not expect all the issues would be resolved within one (1) week;
however, the Board was aware Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., was working within a limited
timeframe. He indicated he understands the time constraints; however, there are outstanding issues
which need to be resolved. Chair Rademacher concurred with Commissioner Conway, and he inquired
as to how long it will take to resolve the matter. Ms. Bauer reiterated she thinks the surveyor could
complete the survey as soon as tomorrow, or the following day. Chair Rademacher stated he does not
want to continue the matter for another week, if the surveyor may not be able to complete the survey in
that time. Mr. Barker recommended the Board deny the nonexclusive license agreement and then the
new proposed route can be included in a new agreement, which can be presented as early as Monday.
Commissioner Garcia inquired as to whether it will prejudice the matter if the Board votes to deny the
Minutes, October 20, 2010 2010-2515
Page 8 BC0016
agreement and then it later determines the initial route is the best option. Mr. Barker indicated this is an
administrative decision and it will not prejudice the matter, and he stated the Board will not be denying
the agreement; it will be voting to not approve the agreement. Chair Rademacher indicated he shared
Commissioner Garcia's concern, and if it turns out the existing road is entirely on the USDA property,
another access route might end up being the best option; therefore, he does not want to take any of the
options off the table; however, he wants to explore the other options before making a decision. Chair
Rademacher gave the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given. Mr. Anderson stated
that Chair Rademacher indicated that if the survey determines the road is on Mr. Hoffner's property,
Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., can proceed; however, that will remove Weld County's
involvement from the process and leave Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., to negotiate access with
Mr. Hoffner, and Mr. Hoffner has indicated he is unwilling to negotiate access with Slawson Exploration
Company, Inc. Mr. Hoffner clarified he is willing to negotiate access, and he was only approached
about the route which was initially proposed; he has never been approached about the existing road. In
response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Hoffner stated he is willing to negotiate access between
Sections 20 and 21. In response to Commissioner Conway, Chair Rademacher confirmed the access
Mr. Hoffner is referring to is the third option described by Mr. Carroll. Mr. Hoffner indicated he is willing
to consider granting access to Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., from between Sections 20 and 21,
to spud the well, as long as Slawson Exploration, Inc., pursues obtaining the Federal permit. Chair
Rademacher stated he will work with the USDA on the matter as well; however, it may not be
necessary, depending on what the survey determines, and Mr. Hoffner has indicated he is willing to
allow Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., to utilize the existing road if the survey determines the road
is on his property. He stated he is willing to continue the matter for another week, in order to allow time
for the survey to be completed. Ms. Bauer inquired as to whether the Board is proposing continuing the
original agreement, with the new survey and route information to be added, or whether a new
agreement will be necessary. Mr. Barker reiterated he recommends denying the agreement; to indicate
the Board is not approving what was presented at this time. He stated Slawson Exploration Company,
Inc., can then work with Mr. Carroll to create a new nonexclusive license agreement, which will be
easier, since it can be placed on the agenda as soon as it is ready for consideration by the Board.
Commissioner Conway requested direction on how the motion should be worded. Chair Rademacher
suggested the motion should be to deny the agreement. Mr. Barker suggested the language should be
to not approve the agreement. Commissioner Conway moved to not approve said agreement.
Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, with the clarification that his second is not to be interpreted
as any prejudice in the matter; it is due to the desire to examine the alignment of Sections 20 and 21.
There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. No Ordinances were approved.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
Minutes, October 20, 2010 2010-2515
Page 9 BC0016
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 10:18 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
14 Elsa WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: y , gyp: � . �� ��.i .J.
is6i f. s • �j:ugl-: Rademac er, hair
•Weld County Clerk to the Board I
XCUSED
\?4,: „ /:arbara Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tern
BY: ltii t l '04 (% � �I C
De u Clerk o the Board ,
Sean P. C C
iam F. Ga
EXCUSED
David E. Long
Minutes, October 20, 2010 2010-2515
Page 10 BC0016
Hello