HomeMy WebLinkAbout20092449.tiffRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2009
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, September 14, 2009, 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 William F. Garcia, Chair
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer
Commissioner David E. Long
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Elizabeth Strong
Director of Finance and Administration, Donald D. Warden
MINUTES: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of September 9, 2009, as printed. Commissioner Long seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the Certification of
Hearings conducted on September 8, 2009: 1) Violation Hearings. Commissioner Conway 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 Rademacher moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Conway seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
BIDS:
PRESENT BID #60900144, PEST CONTROL FOR WELD COUNTY - DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
AND GROUNDS: Monica Mika, Director of Administrative Services, stated said bid will be presented for
approval on September 28, 2009. Responding to Chair Garcia, Ms. Mika stated the pest control measures
are generally performed on a monthly basis.
2009-2449
BC0016
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY ASSEMBLY OF MORE THAN 350 PERSONS ON
SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 - MEAD ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION: Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated
the event will take place at 6105 County Road 32, and it has been conducted at this location before.
Mr. Barker stated the application is complete and he recommends approval. Commissioner Conway stated
he has attended the event in previous years and the Mead Rotary Club Foundation does an outstanding
job of conducting it. He stated it is a great event for the community and he moved to approve said
application. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 - MEAD
ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION: Mr. Barker stated this application is for the Mead Rotary Club Foundation
to be able to serve alcoholic beverages at its event. He stated the application materials are in order and
he recommends approval.
Terry Enright, applicant, indicated he is present to represent the Mead Rotary Foundation, and the event
is a fund raiser for the Nicaraguan Water Project. Mr. Enright thanked the Board for its support.
Commissioner Conway stated the Mead Rotary Foundation has been involved with the Nicaraguan Water
Project for a number of years. Mr. Enright stated this will be the Foundation's fourth annual fund raiser
for the Project. Commissioner Conway stated it is an incredible project and he commended the Foundation
for its work on it. He explained the Nicaraguan Water Project brings clean water to a rural area of
Nicaragua and it is saving many lives. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said application.
Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR 3.2 PERCENT BEER RETAIL LICENSE AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO
SIGN - KUM & GO, LC, DBA KUM & GO #913: Mr. Barker stated the application is for a new 3.2 percent
beer retail license and although the establishment has an address indicating it is within the Town of Mead,
it is located within Weld County's jurisdiction. He stated the Board needs to consider three items, as listed
in the Resolution, and the application is in order; therefore, he recommends approval. Commissioner
Rademacher stated he conducted a walk-through inspection and everything is in order at the
establishment. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said application and authorize the Chair
to sign. Commissioner Kirkmeyer seconded the motion. Commissioner Conway stated the establishment
is located near 1-25, part of the area is located within the Town of Mead, and part of it is within
unincorporated Weld County.
Phil Hoey, District Supervisor, Kum & Go, LC, stated Kum & Go, LC, was founded in 1959 and has 430
stores located throughout 12 states, and this will be its fourth store in Weld County. Mr. Hoey stated every
associate participates in a training process regarding selling restricted products responsibly, via computer,
and point of sale software is utilized which requires the employees to enters the customer's date of birth
into the system from the customer's identification card, to ensure underage customers are not being sold
alcohol. He stated Victoria Brigham will be the store manager at the new location and she is experienced
in retail.
Kelly Pietrs, Esquire Petitioning Services, stated she performed a survey of the designated neighborhood
to determine whether there is a need and desire for the establishment. Ms. Pietrs stated the designated
area is sparsely populated; however, she tried to identify every residential property and business owner
in the area. She stated Esquire Petitioning Services knocked on the doors of 231 residences and
businesses and 119 people signed the petition. She further stated 46 residents and 67 business owners,
or managers, signed in support of the 3.2 percent beer license; therefore, 95 percent of those who signed
the petition supported the 3.2 percent beer license. Ms. Pietrs stated three residents and three business
owners signed in opposition to the license, and the reason provided by two of the people in opposition is
there is a sufficient number of existing outlets, three people indicated they are concerned about a negative
Minutes, September 14, 2009 2009-2449
Page 2 BC0016
impact on drinking and driving, and one person declined to state a reason for being opposed to the license.
She stated there is good evidence there is a need for the establishment in the neighborhood for a
3.2 percent beer license and a desire among the adult inhabitants. Chair Garcia gave the opportunity for
public testimony; however, there was none. Commissioner Conway inquired as to whether there have
been any concerns regarding any of the three existing Kum and Go, LC, facilities in Weld County.
Mr. Barker stated there are no concerns regarding the existing establishments. There being no further
discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - LYNDAL STEEL BUILDINGS, LLC:
Christopher Woodruff, Assessor, stated this petition is concerning a 2008 valuation for a personal property,
and after the delinquent tax notice was sent by the Treasurer's Office, it was discovered that the business
closed in 2007; therefore, the 2008 valuation is improper and an abatement is recommended, in the
amount of $1,373.84. Chair Garcia gave the opportunity for public testimony; however, there was none
given. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said petition, resulting in a refund in the amount of
$1,373.84, based on staff's recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - EDWARD AND VICKY WATSON:
Mr. Woodruff stated the property value was protested in 2007 and the petitioners entered into a stipulation
during the County Board of Equalization process; therefore, another adjustment is not allowed and the
2007 value must be maintained for 2008. He stated the statute regarding abatements does not allow
property owners to file a petition for abatement if they have already exercised their right of appeal, as these
property owners have done; therefore, denial is recommended. Commissioner Conway inquired as to
when the property owners will be able to appeal their property value again. Mr. Woodruff stated the
property owners will be able to appeal again in 2009. Chair Garcia gave the opportunity for public
testimony; however, there was none given. Commissioner Conway moved to deny said petition, based
on staff's recommendation and the statutory limitations. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER DECLARING CERTAIN EQUIPMENT AS SURPLUS PROPERTY AND APPROVE SALE OF
SAME AT AUCTION WITH ROLLER AND ASSOCIATES: Barb Connolly, Controller, stated the vehicles
to be auctioned have been submitted as surplus, as the vehicle replacements have occurred throughout
the year. Ms. Connolly stated the auction will be held on September 26, 2009, and numerous communities
participate in the auction, including Larimer County and the City of Longmont; therefore, it is a large
auction, at which Weld County tends to have successful sales. Commissioner Conway inquired as to
whether there are any requests from smaller communities in need of equipment. Ms. Connolly stated the
County has never dealt directly with individual communities regarding its surplus, due to the time and
process involved; it has always taken the equipment to auction. Commissioner Rademacher moved to
declare certain equipment as surplus property and approve sale of the same at an auction with Roller and
Associates. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AGREEMENT FOR ON -SITE FLU VACCINATIONS AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN -
WORKWELL OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE: Patti Russell, Director, Department of Human Resources,
stated the agreement is with Workwell Occupational Medicine to provide the second annual Influenza
vaccinations; however, this year the Paramedic Service staff will administer the shots, rather than Workwell
Occupational Medicine, which will reduce the cost from $20.00 to $15.00 per shot. Ms. Russell stated
727 doses were administered to Weld County employees last year, and 800 doses have been ordered for
this year. Chair Garcia inquired as to whether the vaccination protects against the seasonal strain of
Influeza or the H1 N1 strain, and Ms. Russell clarified this vaccination is for the seasonal strain of Influeza.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Russell stated staff does not pay out-of-pocket for the
vaccination; the County provides the vaccination free of charge, as part of the Wellness Program.
Minutes, September 14, 2009 2009-2449
Page 3 BC0016
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated in the agreement, under 1 B, it refers to dates and times listed in Exhibit
A; however, she does not see any dates or times listed in Exhibit A. She further stated 1C refers to the
billing practice for additional services and inquired as to what those services include. Ms. Russell stated
the County is not requesting any additional services, since the Paramedic Service staff is administering
the shots and the Department of Public Health and Environment is storing the vaccine; therefore, the fees
will not apply. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the agreement should omit the section regarding additional
services, since the County will not be utilizing any additional services, and 7B refers to the expiration date;
however, there is not an expiration date listed on Exhibit A. Ms. Russell indicated she will research the
answers to Commissioner Kirkmeyer's questions regarding the agreement. Commissioner Conway
inquired as to the schedule for the flu shots. Ms. Russell indicated she will provide Exhibit A to the Board,
and the practice run of the flu shot clinic will be conducted on October 1, 2009, therefore, the Influenza
shots will be administered to Weld County employees during the second or third week of October. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Russell indicated it will not cause a problem to continue the
matter to September 16, 2009, and she would rather the Board be provided all of the pertinent information
before a determination is made. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated Exhibit A indicates the services to be
provided are flu shots and supplies; therefore, it should be updated to reflect Workwell is only providing
the vaccine and it will not administer the shots. Commissioner Conway moved to continue the matter to
September 16, 2009. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING:
CONSIDER REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ROAD IMPACT FEES - SPICER RANCHES LTD (USR#1633):
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, stated the property owner is appealing the Transportation
Road Impact Fee assessment, as established by the Department of Planning Services and affirmed by the
Department of Public Works, through the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Ogle stated the appeal process is
described in Section 20-1-340 of the Weld County Code, as follows: "A fee payer affected by the
administrative decision of the Director on an Independent Fee Calculation Study may appeal such decision
to the Board of County Commissioners, by filing with the Director within ten (10) days of the date of the
written decision a written notice stating and specifying briefly the grounds of the appeal."
He stated the memorandum dated September 14, 2009, provides a time line regarding the case, and
clarified on December 3, 2008, Wendi Inloes, Department of Planning Services, assessed the
Transportation Road Impact Fee of $33,517.65, and the fee was based on compliance with Table 20.1 of
the Weld County Code and information provided by the applicant on the use of the building. He stated on
December 24, 2008, Jacob Augenstein, Casseday Creative Designs, requested a re-evaluation of the
Transportation Road Impact Fee, and on January 12, 2009, Janet Carter, Traffic Engineer, Department
of Public Works, provided a response to Casseday Creative Designs addressing the items needed for the
Independent Fee Calculation and an explanation of the assessed Road Impact Fee. Mr. Ogle stated the
Department of Public Works recommends that the arena be assessed at a rate of $509.00 per 1,000
square feet, which totals $33,517.65. He further stated on August 7, 2009, Ms. Carter met with the
applicant's representatives, Tim Naylor and Tom Haren, AGPROfessionals, LLC, regarding the
requirements of the Independent Fee Calculation. Mr. Ogle stated on August 10, 2009, Becky Meyring,
owner of Spicer Ranch, provided written documentation of a contractual agreement for AGPROfessionals,
LLC, to process all of the work related to the Road Impact Fee assessed to the Spicer Arena, and on
August 10, 2009, Ms. Mika received the Independent Fee Calculation from Mr. Naylor. He further stated
on August 18, 2009, Ms. Carter issued a memorandum indicating that the Independent Fee Calculation
was incomplete. Mr. Ogle stated the Department of Planning Services has determined that the applicant
has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 20-1-330 for the following reasons: The applicant has
failed to rely upon general principles of impact analysis, and the data, information, and assumptions used
by the applicant to calculate the Independent Fee Calculation are not consistent with the impacts of the
proposed use. He stated the Department of Public Works has determined the submitted materials were
not prepared by a qualified traffic planner or engineer, pursuant to an accepted methodology of
Minutes, September 14, 2009 2009-2449
Page 4 BC0016
transportation planning or engineering, the Independent Fee Calculation was not calculated by the use of
traffic count data, and there was no summary of the trip distribution anticipated from the site, nor was there
analysis of the existing or future traffic volumes for the immediate, short term, or long term. He stated the
applicant relied upon an average number of vehicles per event, per year, which is not consistent with the
application materials. Mr. Ogle stated the Department of Planning Services is forwarding the case to the
Board of County Commissioners, for review and determination, as described in Section 20-1-340 of the
Weld County Code, which states, "The Board of County Commissioners, after hearing, shall have the
power to affirm or reverse the decision of the Director. In making its decision, the Board of County
Commissioners shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law, and apply the standards in
Section 20-1-330 above. If the Board of County Commissioners reverses the decision of the Director, it
shall instruct the Director to recalculate the fee in accordance with its findings." He stated the Department
of Planning Services is recommending that the Board direct staff to accept the methodology and findings
developed by the Weld County Department of Public Works for the Independent Fee Calculation, and it
is the judgment of staff that the findings meet the standards of Section 20-1-330 and the proposed fee,
in the amount of $33,517.65, is consistent with the impacts generated.
Mr. Haren submitted a packet of materials, marked Exhibit A, and stated the Spicer Arena is located
approximately four miles northeast of the Town of Eaton, on County Roads 43 and 76, and the feedlot and
farm have existed for thirty years. He stated the roping arena was constructed in 2001 and the building
predates the County -wide Road Impact Fee Program, which was implemented January 1, 2003, and the
use of the building has not changed; it is an indoor riding arena used for roping and riding events. He
stated the majority of people who utilize the facility are participants in the events, as opposed to spectators,
and the Use by Special Review (USR) permit limits the occupancy to 150 people. Mr. Haren stated equine
arenas are not addressed in the Weld County Code; however, the facility was compared to an arena, a
church, and a theater. He stated the use of an arena is of the same nature as the Budweiser Center, or
the Pepsi Center, and it is not comparable to the equine arena, since it is not the same type of facility, and
it should not be classified as an arena. He stated the equine arena has a higher rate of usage on
weekends; however, this is the only way in which the equine facility is similar to a church. He stated the
equine arena has no grandstands for spectators to utilize and there are few spectators who visit the equine
arena. Mr. Haren stated AGPROfessionals, LLC, had a traffic evaluation prepared, with the assistance
of a Traffic Engineer from the Department of Public Works. He indicated using the team roping weekend
jackpot events, which yield the most participants of all of the events, the peak trips per hour, per unit, was
calculated to be 0.27 trips per unit. He stated the rate which most closely resembles the calculated trip
rate for the equine arena is the mini -warehouse rate of 0.26 trips per 1,000 square feet, and it has a
Transportation Road Impact Fee of $333.00 per 1,000 square feet. He stated the trip generation rate for
an arena is 3.33 trips per unit, which is over 12 times the amount of trips attributed to the equine arena.
Mr. Haren stated the church classification, for a building of this size, will allow for 9,400 participants,
according the Building and Fire Code, which is over 60 times the amount of people allowed by the USR
permit for this site. He read Section 20-1-220.6 for the record, stating, "The Director shall determine the
fee on the basis of the fee applicable to the most nearly comparable type of land use on the fee schedule."
He stated since the equine arena is limited to 150 people, it equates to 2.3 people per 1,000 square feet,
and the National Fire Protection Agency and Life Safety Code specifies, "The occupant load shall not
exceed one person per seven square feet, where the area of space exceeds 10,000 square feet," which
allows for 142 people per 1,000 square feet and it is consistent with the 150 people allowed by the USR
permit for this site. He stated the occupancy of a theater or church is 60 to 70 times the amount allowed
for the equine arena; therefore, it is not comparable in occupancy, nor road impact. Mr. Haren stated the
most comparable trip generation rate for the equine arena is the mini -warehouse fee schedule; however,
the road impact fees are based on Agricultural Commercial for only the commercial portion of the building
and not the agriculture exempt portion of the building. He stated the County's Transportation Road Impact
Fee Schedule is shown in Table 20.1, and the Director of Planning Services is supposed to consider the
traffic generation, or the comparable types of land use; however, the Department of Public Works chose
Minutes, September 14, 2009 2009-2449
Page 5 BC0016
a number from the chart and did consider comparable types of land use, nor did it perform a traffic study.
He stated County staff indicated there is existing precedence for the equine arena; however, the examples
presented for precedence are either misapplications of the fees or adjustment of the fees or the
classifications, and there is no precedence for an equine arena. He stated the first example is a case in
which the County used the mini -warehouse fee for an Agricultural Commercial classification, for a calf
confinement facility. Mr. Haren stated he was told the County cannot adjust the fee; however, this appears
to be inconsistent, and the square footage listed for the facility was limited to the maximum allowable for
the Agricultural Commercial classification, which is 2,500 square feet; however, the facility is much larger.
He stated the next example is for a horse breeding facility, which paid a Transportation Road Impact Fee
in the amount of $1,120.00, which is approximately 1/30 of the fee being assessed to the equine arena,
and the fee was only applied to 2,200 square feet of the facility. He stated the third example provided by
County staff is for a dairy barn, and although there is a category for dairy barns in Table 20.1, the
Transportation Road Impact Fee was determined based on the commercial square footage of the facility
and not the agriculture exempt portion of the dairy, such as the stalls and holding area. Mr. Haren stated
an 8,000 -square -foot milk parlor on the dairy, for 2,000 to 3,000 head of cattle, has a Road Impact Fee
of $4,000.00, which is one -eighth of the amount of the fee being assessed to the equine arena.
He stated staff indicated an exhaustive search was conducted; however, there are two examples which
were not provided by staff and they seem to be the most comparable and precedent setting; USR #1540
for the Church Barn, LLC, and USR #1393 for Rappel's Arena; however, no fees have been assessed.
He stated the Church Barn is 45,000 square feet and has a maximum occupancy of 350 people, and
Rappel's Arena has no requirements for the Transportation Road Impact Fee listed in the Conditions of
Approval or the Development Standards; however, both of these USR permits were approved after the
Transportation Road Impact Fee was implemented. He reiterated the Spicer arena obtained the USR
permit after the Transportation Road Impact Fee was enacted; however, the building existed prior to the
fee. Mr. Haren stated the definition of Agricultural Commercial indicates the facility must have less than
2,500 square feet of total floor space and the equine arena is being assessed for 65,800 square feet;
therefore, it does not meet the Agricultural Commercial requirements. He stated the Spicer Arena has
approximately 3,200 square feet of commercial area, including office space, restrooms, concession areas,
and a play area for children, and the remaining square footage is agricultural, including a dirt arena, stalls,
alleys, pens, animal handling facilities, and tack rooms. He stated if this were an outdoor equine arena
with an adjacent building containing the same commercial facilities, the Transportation Road Impact Fee
would be based on the square footage of the building, and it would not include the square footage of the
arena; therefore, the most consistent way to assess the facility is to only assess the Commercial square
footage. Mr. Haren stated there is no precedent regarding $33,517.65 being assessed for a Transportation
Road Impact Fee for a nine -year -old building changing its private use to Commercial. He stated the
Transportation Road Impact Fee is strictly based on the property being classified Agricultural Commercial
and the square footage of the building, no road impact calculations were provided to Ms. Meyring to
substantiate the fee being assessed, staff indicated if it calculated the actual road impact fee, the amount
assessed would be much higher than the amount being requested, and the impact calculations provided
by Ms. Meyring were discounted. He stated the fee is extraordinary and unreasonable, and there is no
factual basis or precedent to justify the fee.
Mr. Haren stated the Weld County Home Rule Charter states the Commissioners cannot negotiate a fee;
however, a written finding of fact must be made. He reiterated the structure predates the enactment of
the fee and the use has not changed; equine arenas are not addressed within the Code, nor within the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Distribution Manual; church theater arenas are not an
applicable compartison; the determination by the Department of Public Works is not applicable, no
precedent has been provided by the County; the information provided by the County as precedence is
inconsistent; there is no fee assessed for the most comparable examples to the equine arena; and the fee
based on the Agricultural Commercial facility is the most applicable and consistent. He stated if the
Minutes, September 14, 2009 2009-2449
Page 6 BC0016
Agricultural Commercial assessment rate was utilized for up to 2,500 feet, the maximum amount of square
footage allowed, the fee would be $1,272.00; or if the Agricultural Commercial assessment rate was
utilized for the entire square footage, the fee would be $1,628.00. Mr. Haren requested the Board to
reverse the decision of the Director, and instruct staff to recalculate the fee in accordance with the Board's
findings. He stated the Spicer Arena has deposited $10,000.00 to Weld County; however, $500.00 was
utilized for the hearing.
In response to Chair Garcia, Mr. Haren reiterated the applicant is requesting that the fee amount be
reduced to $1,628.00, based on the 3,200 square feet of commercial area being assessed at the
Agricultural Commercial rate. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Haren confirmed the fee he
is proposing is described on Page 8 of Exhibit A. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the structure predates
the fee being enacted; however, the use of the structure does not, since the use was updated through the
USR permit. Mr. Haren stated the owner applied for a USR permit for the Agricultural Commercial facility
because the facility was in violation of the Weld County Code prior to applying for the USR permit;
however, the building and its use preceded the enactment of the Transportation Road Impact Fee.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Haren stated outdoor arenas are not assessed the
Transportation Road Impact Fee; however, they generate the same amount of traffic. Further responding
to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Haren stated the equine arena conducts most events on weekends and
Wednesday nights, excluding holidays. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Haren clarified
the Church Barn, LLC, was an example of a similar facility; however, there is not a church associated with
this equine arena. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Haren confirmed there were no
Transportation Road Impact Fees assessed for the Church Barn, LLC, or Rappel's Arena. Mr. Haren
further stated the Transportation Road Impact Fee is referenced in the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards for the USR permit for the Church Barn, LLC; however, the Conditions of Approval
and Development Standards for the USR permit for Rappel's Arena do not reference the Transportation
Road Impact Fee.
Mr. Ogle clarified USR #1633 was approved for an Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged
in performing agricultural, animal husbandry, and horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including
a Commercial Rodeo (indoor and outdoor), in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. He stated 150 people are
allowed in the indoor arena and 250 people are allowed in the outdoor arena. He stated a violation was
established in 2007, at which time it was discovered that the arena was being used for commercial
activities, rather than as a personal arena.
Ms. Inloes stated Rappel's Arena was not assessed the Transportation Road Impact Fee because it only
applied to certain areas of the County prior to the year 2004, after which time the fee became applicable
to all of Weld County. She further stated the reason Church Barn, LLC, has not been assessed a
Transportation Road Impact Fee is because the paperwork for a change of use has not been submitted.
She stated an error was made regarding a fee on one of the examples Mr. Haren provided, which was
assessed at $333.00, when it should have been assessed at $509.00; however, the fee was not
negotiated.
Ms. Carter stated that Mr. Haren made some incorrect statements regarding his explanation of the
process. She stated Weld County requires a traffic study to be signed and stamped by a professional
engineer, and the information submitted by the appellant's representatives is not; therefore, staff has not
received an official traffic study. She stated Mr. Haren indicated the Department of Public Works assisted
with the traffic study; however, what actually occurred is that she provided Mr. Naylor with traffic counts
for the surrounding area and answered some questions Mr. Naylor had regarding the Code. She reiterated
staff has not received a traffic study and she has requested that one be submitted since January 12, 2009,
in order to complete the Independent Fee Calculation. She stated another incorrect statement made by
Mr. Haren may be the result of the misinterpretation of the memorandum, dated July 12, 2009, in which
Minutes, September 14, 2009 2009-2449
Page 7 BC0016
she indicated the use of a roping arena is not in the ITE Trip Distribution Manual. Ms. Carter stated there
are only two examples of arenas in the manual and the examples were not comparable to the equine
arena; therefore, she considered the type of use and determined the use may be similar to a church, in
which there is very little activity during the week and the activity increases during the weekend; however,
she never applied the church valuation to the Transportation Road Impact Fee for the site. She stated she
used the values provided by Casseday Creative Designs, LLC, to analyze the types of trips taking place,
and compared those trips to similar uses within the ITE Trip Distribution Manual. She further stated a
similar volume of traffic to the Agricultural Commercial classification is found in the Light Industrial
category, as noted in the memorandum; however, the category is not listed in Table 20.1. Ms. Carter
stated Ms. Inloes made an honest mistake regarding the fee; she correctly wrote Agricultural Commercial
on the document and $333.00 is in the next row from $509.00. She stated the reason the Transportation
Road Impact Fee needs to be applied is because of the volume of trucks and trailers traveling to, and from,
the site, which create an additional impact on the roads. In response to Chair Garcia, Ms. Carter stated
the facility is utilized for profit and people are attending to participate in the rodeo jackpots; therefore, the
land use is Agricultural Commercial. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Carter reiterated there
has been no traffic study submitted; however, there is an estimated value based on the number of people
the applicant estimates will attend the events. She stated there has never been an analysis of the existing
volume on the roads or of the trip distribution, and there have been no projections calculated for future
traffic volumes. She stated if the applicant is contesting the Transportation Road Impact Fee, they need
to prove the site is not creating the volume associated with this type of land use. Ms. Carter stated she
has provided a comparison of the Transportation Road Impact Fees charged by other counties, and the
fees charged by Weld County are considerably lower than any of the other counties. Commissioner
Conway inquired as to whether other traffic counts have been conducted in the area. Ms. Carter stated
other traffic counts have been taken for the area and she has provided those counts to the applicant. She
stated there may not be an increase in the volume of traffic due to the facility; however, no traffic study has
been performed, and she has to make the assumption there has been some improvement in business
since the structure was built in 2001, since the family business has developed into a commercial business.
She stated the traffic count may not increase because the commercial activity has been occurring for a
long period of time, in violation of the Weld County Code; therefore, it is difficult to determine when the
traffic volume increased, and the owner has not been paying for the impact caused to the roads by the
traffic attending commercial events at the site. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Carter indicated
there are traffic counts available from 2001. Commissioner Conway stated the existing traffic counts will
determine if there has been an increase in traffic volume. Ms. Carter stated there has been an increase
in the traffic volume since 2001; however, she does not have the data with her today, and it not a fair way
to determine how much of the traffic the owner is responsible for, since the increase in the traffic volume
may not be solely attributed to the equine facility. She clarified she requested a traffic study from the
applicant, in order to account for the amount of the traffic traveling to the equine facility.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated everyone seems to agree the site is Agricultural Commercial, which is
assessed at the $509.00 rate, per 1,000 square feet; however, the overall square footage appears to be
the discrepancy. She stated in the example of the milk barn, only the square footage of the milk barn was
assessed, and she inquired as to why all of the square footage is being assessed for this site. Ms. Inloes
stated she assesses the fee according to how the property is listed on the building permit and typically only
the structure is permitted; therefore, she typically only assesses the square footage of the building. She
stated pens, for example, are not typically assessed. In response to Comissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Inloes
stated she only assessed the indoor arena for this site, and it is 65,000 square feet in size. Responding
to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Commissioner Rademacher stated the square footage includes office space
and other areas, in addition to the arena. Mr. Haren clarified 3,200 square feet of the facility is not within
the arena. Ms. Inloes stated instead of assessing the office and arena separately, the entire facility was
assessed as Agricultural Commercial, even though it exceeds 2,500 square feet.
Minutes, September 14, 2009 2009-2449
Page 8 BC0016
In response to Chair Garcia, Mr. Barker stated the appellant has the burden of proof, and there are general
assessment categories set up, which may or may not fit; therefore, staff tries to identify the closest
category, and if the applicant wants to appeal, the Independent Fee Calculation Study is utilized, as
explained Section 20-1-310 of the Weld County Code. Mr. Barker stated the Code specifies the formula,
some portions of which are facts provided by the applicant. He stated a traffic study does not need to be
completed to have an Independent Fee Calculation Study conducted; however, it is wise to do so, in order
to prove the facts. He stated the letter from AGPROfessionals, LLC, dated August 10, 2009, makes an
attempt to provide the Independent Fee Calculation Study. Mr. Barker stated the appeal process requires
the applicant to provide facts regarding the matter and after the Board considers the information, it may
determine the appellant has provided a correct Independent Fee Calculation Study, or it may determine
the Director of Planning Services is correct regarding the category for which the fee was assessed. He
stated the Board does not need to determine if the property should have been assessed under a different
category, the method for the appeal is to use the formula. Commissioner Long stated when the concept
of Transportation Road Impact Fees was initially discussed, it was recognized that all the potential uses
could not be addressed; therefore, there is some flexibility for staff to select the most similar type of use.
He stated this is an opportunity for equine arenas to be considered as a new category, rather than
comparing it to the existing categories. He further stated equine areas are unique because they do not
allow the large numbers of people that other buildings of similar size do, and this equine arena may be
used as a model.
Ms. Carter stated the equations are in the Code and it does not specify a traffic study is necessary;
however, in order to achieve the calculations, a traffic study is required. She clarified in order to determine
the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Miles Capacity (VMC), a detailed analysis is necessary and
a volume of data must be compared. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Carter stated the
information provided in the letter from AGPROfessionals, LLC, is not sufficient because it is not complete
and it does not provide any supporting data to demonstrate where the data came from, for example, there
is no explanation of the VMT or VMC, and the lengths that the public is traveling to visit the location were
not addressed. She stated the memorandum she wrote on August 18, 2009, specifies the reasons the
study is not complete, which include: the traffic count data that was collected by the applicant's
representative was not included with the submittal; the calculations for VMT, VMC, and the length of the
impacted roadways were not provided from the Highway Capacity Manual formulas with the submittal; the
Independent Fee Calculation Study submitted was not performed by a transportation engineer or planner,
and Section 20-1-3106.2 of the Weld County Code states, "The independent source is a local study on
trip characteristics carried out by a qualified traffic planner or engineer, pursuant to an accepted
methodology of transportation planning or engineering;" the Independent Fee Calculation must be
calculated by the use of traffic count data and land use defined in Trip Generation, a report prepared by
the ITE, and the Independent Fee Calculation for Spicer Arena was based incorrectly on an estimated trip
volume proposed by the applicant's representative; the submitted Independent Fee Calculation did not
contain a summary of the study area and the trip distribution anticipated from the site; an analysis of
existing traffic volumes and mitigation of any level of services deficiencies that may occur were not
submitted; and the analysis of future traffic volumes in the short term and long term were not submitted.
She stated the absence of those seven key items is why she deemed the Independent Fee Calculation to
be incomplete.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether a discussion occurred regarding the amount of square
footage attributed to Agricultural Commercial, since it seems to be the source of the disagreement, in
which case, a traffic study is not necessary. Ms. Inloes concurred with Commissioner Kirkmeyer, and she
indicated she is typically involved with all of the discussions regarding fees, as the fee administrator;
however, in this instance, she was not involved with any of the discussions. She stated all of the
discussions occurred between the Director of Planning Services and Mr. Haren. Ms. Carter stated her
involvement in the matter was prompted by the letter dated December 24, 2008, which did not contest the
Minutes, September 14, 2009 2009-2449
Page 9 BC0016
amount of Agricultural Commercial square footage; it contested the assessed fee. Chair Garcia stated in
the Resolution, it specifies a fee in the amount of $16,470.50, and he has not heard any discussion
regarding that amount. Commissioner Kirkmeyer read the fourth paragraph of the Resolution, stating,
"Whereas, Spicer Ranches, LTD, submitted an Independent Fee Calculation Study, pursuant to Code
Section 20-1-320.A, wherein the amount of the fee was proposed to be $16,470.59;" therefore, she
presumes it is the amount the applicant calculated from the Independent Fee Calculation Study.
Ms. Carter stated $16,470.59 is the amount that the applicant submitted to staff as the value they would
prefer to pay, as opposed to the value of $33,517.00 assessed by staff.
Mr. Haren stated there are two components needing to be determined; traffic and category. He stated the
applicant objected to the traffic study because it is not required within the Code and his most recent
meeting was with Ms. Mika, who determined the applicant did not need to perform a traffic study; however,
the formula must be used. He stated the County provided some information for the applicant, and he
would have preferred more; however, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) provided data,
and he also received assistance from other engineers and consultants which he has previously worked
with. He stated the data is for Highways 34, 14, 85, and Interstate 25, and some debate ensued regarding
using the data CDOT provided; however, data was not provided by the Department of Public Works.
Mr. Haren stated the traffic summation was determined to be 0.26, which is comparable to the
mini -warehouse. He stated he does not know the basis for the rule; however, the only land use category
with a limitation on the maximum square footage is Agricultural Commercial; therefore, he speculates it
is because the amount of Commercial square footage, in comparison to the size of the Commercial
Agriculture buildings, is small. He stated a portion of the building is Agricultural Commercial; however,
most of it Animal Husbandry. He stated the Director of Planning Services selects a category, and if an
applicant disagrees with the selection, the applicant is directed to propose a different category or use of
the category, which is what he is proposing. He proposed that the fee be assessed for 2,500 square feet
of Agricultural Commercial, or the entire 3,200 square feet of Commercial area in the facility. Ms. Mika
stated she had a conversation with Mr. Haren and neither of them participated in the beginning of this
process, and this was a unique case, which was handled differently than most others. She stated staff was
at an impasse; therefore, she and Mr. Haren discussed fee and land use matters. She further stated
according to the Code, the process for appeal is that staff will work with the applicant until the matter is
resolved, and a building permit will not be issued prior to resolving the matter. Ms. Mika stated the reason
there is maximum amount of square footage specified for the Agricultural Commercial category in the Code
is because when the Transportation Road Impact Fee went into effect, there was not an Agricultural
Commercial category; however, it became apparent there needed to be some flexibility regarding the fee,
in order to allow an Agricultural use, which is of low intensity, with one owner and few employees;
therefore, the Agricultural Commercial category was created specifically for a small amount of square
footage. She stated this is the second appeal the County has had regarding the Transportation Road
Impact Fee, and the Code does not specify a Transportation Engineer needs to perform the calculation;
however, in order to be have a credible calculation, the person who completes it must have the
fundamental knowledge to perform the calculation.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer the definitions forAgricultural within Section 20-1-130 of the Code states, "having
less than 2,500 square feet of floor space per lot," and she inquired as to whether the County is only
supposed to assess up to 2,500 square feet of a Agricultural Commercial operation. Mr. Barker clarified
the Code states Agricultural Commercial property is less than 2,500 feet, and if the facility is larger than
2,500 square feet, it is likely part of another category, other than Agricultural Commercial. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether the Board can apply the Agricultural Commercial rate to more than 2,500
square feet. Mr. Barker reiterated if the facility is larger than 2,500 square feet, it likely falls under a
different category than Agricultural Commercial, and the intent of specifying the amount of square footage
permitted is to limit the category to structures which are less than 2,500 square feet in size.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the Agricultural Commercial category seems to be the closest land use
Minutes, September 14, 2009 2009-2449
Page 10 BC0016
classification for the property; however, there seems to be disagreement between staff and the appellant
regarding the square footage which is related to Agricultural Commercial. She indicated the Transportation
Road Impact Fee, in the amount of $33,517.65, seems excessive. She stated the matter could have been
resolved through better communication among the former Director of Planning Services, the Board, and
the appellant; however, it was not resolved; therefore, she recommended that the Board reverse the
decision of the Director of Planning Services, determine that Agricultural Commercial is the closest land
classification for the facility and that $509.00 per 1,000 square feet is the appropriate rate to calculate the
fee, and direct the appellant and staff to determine the appropriate amount of square footage which is
Agricultural Commercial. Chair Garcia inquired as to whether the Board has the ability to make the
determinations Commissioner Kirkmeyer recommended. Mr. Barker clarified Section 20-1-340 indicates
the Board must affirm or reverse the decision of the Planning Director, and Commissioner Kirkmeyer is
recommending that the Board reverse the decision and direct discussions to occur, in order to reach a
determination regarding the fee. He stated if an agreement cannot be reached, the matter will come back
before the Board. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether the Board can require that a
determination be made regarding the classification and assessment rate prior to the Board further
considering the matter. Mr. Barker indicated the Board may do so.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to reverse the decision of the Director of Planning Services, with the
findings that Agricultural Commercial is the most appropriate classification for the structure, therefore, the
rate of the Transportation Road Impact Fee will be $509.00 per 1,000 square feet. Her motion further
directed staff to work with the appellant to recalculate the amount of square footage attributed to the
Agricultural Commercial classification. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion and inquired as to
whether the traffic matter has been adequately addressed. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the traffic
study does not need to be addressed in the Resolution because if previous communication was clear and
the amount of the facility which is Agricultural Commercial had been determined, the traffic study never
would have been discussed. Commissioner Rademacher requested that staff provide a time line for the
process to him. Commisisoner Kirkmeyer stated if the appellant and staff cannot agree, the appellant may
appeal to the Board a second time regarding the matter. Commissioner Long stated common sense needs
to be applied regarding the number of people which may occupy the building, in addition to considering
the square footage. Commissioner Conway inquired as to whether there will be another fee required for
another appeal to the Board if the matter is not resolved. Mr. Barker stated another fee will not be required
since the appeal will be a continuation of this appeal process. Commissioner Conway stated it would not
be fair to assess another fee if the appellant is not satisfied with the fee calculation. There being no further
discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. No Ordinances were approved.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
Minutes, September 14, 2009 2009-2449
Page 11 BC0016
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
ATTEST:
Weld County Clerk to the
BY
Deputy Cler o the Boar
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD c()LINTY, COLORADO
WilliamiF. Garcia,. Chir
Douglas Radem Sher, Pro -Tern
C --
Sean P. Conway
arbara Kirkmeyer
f' jr _
David E. Long
Minutes, September 14, 2009 2009-2449
Page 12 BC0016
Hello