HomeMy WebLinkAbout20092432.tiffRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
SEPTEMBER 9, 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 9, 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 2, 2009, as printed. Commissioner Kirkmeyer seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
READ ORDINANCE BY TAPE: Commissioner Rademacher moved to read Code Ordinances #2009-9,
#2009-10, and #2009-11 by tape. Commissioner Kirkmeyer seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve the Certification of
Hearings conducted on August 31, 2009: 1) Violation Hearings; and Hearings conducted on
September 2, 2009: 1) USR #1699 - Dennis and Denise Coyne. 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.
NEW BUSINESS:
2009-2432
j0/oq/off
BC0016
CONSIDER APPLICATION FORM FOR QUALISTAR RATING PROJECT - TEMPLE HOYNE BUELL
FOUNDATION: Judy Griego, Director, Department of Human Services, stated the application was
presented to the Board at a work session conducted on August 17, 2009, and the grant will support the
Qualistar Rating process for four Head Start centers. Ms. Griego stated there is no County cash match
required and the grant will provide approximately $1,400.00 per classroom. Commissioner Long moved
to approve said application form. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER GRANT AWARD FOR QUALISTAR RATING PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN -
TEMPLE HOYNE BELL FOUNDATION: Ms. Griego stated although the application was just now formally
approved, a draft version of the application was previously submitted, and the Temple Hoyne Bell
Foundation has awarded the grant, based on the draft version of the application. She stated the grant
award was discussed at the work session conducted on August 31, 2009, $7,200.00 has been awarded
to rate six classrooms, and up to $12,000.00 will be awarded for quality improvements. Commissioner
Conway moved to approve said grant award and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER REVISION TO THREE-YEAR PLAN FOR CORE SERVICES PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN: Ms. Griego stated the plan was presented to the Board at a work session conducted
on August 31, 2009, and it is the third and final plan for the three-year cycle. She stated Weld County's
total Core Services allocation for 2009-2010 is in the amount of $1,421,439.00, and a slight increase in
100 percent funding was received; however, the overall allocation has been decreased from the 2008-2009
budget, due to the elimination of Administrative Case Management funds from the Core Services Program
budget. She stated the term for the plan commenced June 1, 2009, and will end May 31, 2010.
Commissioner Conway moved to approve said revision to the Three -Year Plan for the Core Services
Program and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER COLORADO WORKS PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES AND LEASE AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Dr. Mark Wallace, M.D., Director, Department of Public Health and
Environment, stated that all of the items of business being presented today were discussed at work
sessions conducted in July and August. Dr. Wallace stated this item is an agreement between the
Departments of Public Health and Environment and Human Services, and is allowing the Department of
Public Health and Environment to participate in the Multi -Youth Assessment Team (MYAT), which is
administered by the Department of Human Services and provides intervention and connection skills to
youth and their families. He stated the goal of MYAT is to successfully intervene with families before they
enter the child welfare or juvenile justice systems. He further stated the term of the agreement is
July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, and the funding for the project period will not exceed $44,133.44.
Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said agreement and lease, and authorize the Chair to sign.
Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER CONTRACT AMENDMENT #5 FOR EARLY AND PERIODIC SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS,
AND TREATMENT (EPSDT) PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Dr. Wallace stated the
amendment will extend the contract through December 31, 2009, in order for the Department to continue
to provide case management, outreach, and support services to children and young adults up to 21 years
of age and on Medicaid. He stated the Program activities focus on educating families about age
appropriate well child services and helping them utilize the services which are available in the community,
in order to promote good health and to reduce long term care costs. He further stated an additional
$71,148.50 will be awarded with the extension. Commissioner Long moved to approve said amendment
and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 2 BC0016
CONSIDER AMENDMENT #2 TO TASK ORDER CONTRACT FOR HEALTH CARE PROGRAM FOR
CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Dr. Wallace stated the Health
Care Program for Children with Special Needs has been ongoing in Weld County for a number of years,
and the amendment will allow the services to be continued through September 20, 2010. He stated the
funding is in the amount of $185,903.00; $83,656.00 is from the federal government, and $102,247.00 is
from the State. He further stated the funds will be used to provide a case management approach, to
facilitate the development and enhancement of community -based systems of care for children with special
health care needs, such as developmental delays, seizure disorders, or other disabling conditions.
Dr. Wallace stated the Department will provide case finding and assist with connecting families to services,
and collaborative agreements will be made in order to provide the necessary services. He stated this is
a very important program for families who have children with chronic physical, developmental, behavioral,
or emotional conditions. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said amendment and authorize the
Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER LIMITED AMENDMENT #1 TO TASK ORDER CONTRACT FOR MATERNAL AND CHILD
HEALTH PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Dr. Wallace stated the amendment will provide
a continuation of funding for the Maternal and Child Health Program, which Weld County has been involved
with for a number of years. He stated the Program funding has federal roots; however, is administered
by the states, and the amendment will provide funding for a period commencing October 1, 2009, through
September 30, 2010, in an amount not to exceed $141,252.00. He stated the amendment will allow the
Department to facilitate the development and enhancement of community -based systems of care for the
maternal and child populations of Weld County. Dr. Wallace stated there are ten Public Health Core
Services, and the amendment will assist the Department in providing them to women and children,
particularly to focus on children having access to immunizations and providing women access to family
planning services and prenatal care. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said amendment and
authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TASK ORDER CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Dr. Wallace stated the Task Order Contract will become
part of the Master Contract between the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Weld
County. He stated the contract has two elements; the first is the core component for ongoing federal
funding, which allows the Department to engage in emergency preparedness activities and supports key
staff, including the Regional Epidemiologist and the Emergency Health Planner, and this portion of the
funding is in the amount of $236,281.00. He stated the second element of the contract is a supplemental
award for the first phase of the H1N1 Flu Preparedness Plan, in the amount of $97,424.00. Dr. Wallace
stated all of the funding originates from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, and it is then administered to the states. He stated the total amount of
the funding will be in the amount of $333,705.00, and this is the first of three stages of funding for
H1N1-related activities; therefore, he anticipates additional supplemental funding will be awarded.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve said contract and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by
Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ANCILLARY SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR COLORADO CHILDREN'S BASIC HEALTH
CARE PLAN AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Dr. Wallace stated the agreement will allow the
Department to receive periodic payments for the provision of covered services provided to children enrolled
in the Colorado Children's Basic Health Plan, and there is a Provider Manual which lists the covered
services. He stated the services that are covered under the plan that the Department will provide include
immunization and prenatal services, and the agreement will be effective through June 30, 2013. Chair
Garcia inquired as to whether the reimbursement schedule is comparable to the actual cost of providing
the services. Dr. Wallace stated the Department is able to recover most of its costs due to the limited
nature of the services it provides; however, the reimbursement will not fully compensate all of the providers
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 3 BC0016
with broader ranges of services. Commissioner Conway inquired as to why the term of the agreement is
for a longer period of time than most agreements. Dr. Wallace indicated it is for a longer period of time
in order for the Colorado Department of Health and Environment to ensure the provider base, and these
types of agreements are typically for a longer term. Commissioner Conway indicated generally
agreements which span multiple years are reviewed by the Board on an annual basis, and he inquired as
to whether Dr. Wallace is confident the long-term nature of the agreement will not create a problem. Dr.
Wallace stated the Department will continue to analyze the costs and it will bring the matter to the Board
if it determines it is no longer able to provide the covered services. He stated the Department has
improved its ability to determine if individuals are eligible for the plan, and the services used to be provided
at the County's expense. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said agreement and authorize
the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER STATEMENT OF GRANT AWARD FOR NORTHERN COLORADO REGIONAL FORENSIC
LABORATORY AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated this is a
Statement of Grant Award for the Northern Colorado Regional Forensic Laboratory; however, he does not
know the details surrounding the grant. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the grant award is in the amount
of $56,000.00 for purchasing equipment; however, she needs to know if there is a County cash match and
what the on -going operation costs will be for the equipment. She indicated her understanding of the
procedure for these types of matters is that the Department Head, or Elected Official, is to schedule a work
session with the Board regarding the grant -related materials before the Board will approve the grant. She
stated a short work session will allow the Board to understand the grant and the long term maintenance
and operations costs for the equipment. Chair Garcia concurred with Commissioner Kirkmeyer that a work
session needs to be conducted since there is not a representative present to answer the Board's questions
regarding the grant. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to continue the matter to September 16, 2009.
Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AT INTERSECTION OF CRS 55
AND 76: Janet Carter, Department of Public Works, requested that stop signs be installed at the
intersection of County Roads 55 and 76, due to a dip in County Road 55 and vegetation in the area, both
of which create sight distance issues. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said installation of
traffic devices at the intersection of County Roads 55 and 76. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ON CR 77 BETWEEN SH 14 AND
CR 136: Ms. Carter requested that speed limit signs be installed on County Road 77, between State
Highway 14 and County Road 136, to indicate a speed limit of 65 miles per hour. She stated it is a low
volume road; the average daily traffic count is 580 vehicles, and 44 percent of the vehicles observed were
trucks, which were traveling at an average speed of 77 miles per hour, according to a traffic count
conducted in 2009. She stated there are some hilly portions of County Road 77 for which reduced speeds
may be necessary; however, most the roadway is straight, with a clear sight distance; therefore, she
recommends the speed limit for this section of roadway be raised from 55 to 65 miles per hour. Ms. Carter
stated there have been eight accidents on County Road 77 throughout the past three years, which is a very
low number. Commissioner Conway indicated the memorandum requests the speed limit be reduced from
75 to 65 miles per hour. Ms. Carter clarified the memorandum is incorrect and her request is to raise the
speed limit from 55 to 65 miles per hour. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said installation
of traffic devices on County Road 77. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER DISTRIBUTION OF BANKHEAD-JONES FUNDS FOR 2009: Barb Connolly, Controller,
stated the distribution of the Bankhead-Jones Funds is based on the acreage of the School Districts
located within the Pawnee National Grassland, and the total amount to be distributed to the School Districts
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 4 BC0016
will be $99,684.70, after one percent of the funds has been removed for Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI)
Lobbying Costs, and the County will retain $99,684.70. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether
the reserved amount of the funds is used for membership to the CCI Public Lands Committee. Mr. Warden
stated the Public Lands Committee fee is a part of the CCI dues. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Warden clarified one percent of the funds is reserved to be used toward CCI dues prior to the funds
being distributed. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Warden stated Payment in Lieu
of Taxes (PILT) is a separate federal act; however, both concern funds earned as a result of the Pawnee
National Grassland, and the Bankhead Jones funds are earned as a result of grazing fees. In response
to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Warden stated when a county belongs to the Public Lands Committee
portion of CCI, CCI assesses it based on one percent of the federal PILT and Bankhead Jones funds being
received, which is why the County reserved one percent of the funds when it belonged to the Public Lands
Committee portion of CCI; however, he was not aware the County has not been paying the Public Lands
Committee fee. Commissioner Kirkmeyer confirmed the County is not paying the Public Lands Committee
fee. In response to Commissioner Conway, Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the retained amount of the
funds can be used towards other CCI dues. Mr. Warden concurred and clarified that was the intent of the
policy when it originated. Commissioner Long moved to approve said distribution of Bankhead-Jones
funds for 2009. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER DISTRIBUTION OF PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILT) FOR 2009: Ms. Connolly stated
the PILT funds are split with the School Districts located within the Pawnee National Grassland, after one
percent of the funds has been removed for CCI Lobbying Costs. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated there
is a new statutory requirement which requires the County to engage in discussions with the School
Districts. Mr. Warden indicated he has not engaged in any discussion with the School Districts this year
regarding the matter. Commissioner Conway inquired as to whether the statute applies to taxes from last
year or this year. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated the taxes were collected in 2008 and will be
distributed in 2009; therefore, the statute applies to the distribution of the funds. Commissioner Conway
stated it may not apply until next year since the taxes were collected in 2008. In response to
Commissioner Long, Commissioner Kirkmeyer recommended the Board engage in a discussion with the
affected School Districts. In response to Commissioner Long, Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the statute
requires a discussion occur; however, it does not require a noticed meeting. Commissioner Long indicated
he has discussed the matter with all of the School Districts because each year there are new members on
the School Boards who are interested in the PILT funds; therefore, the Board has satisfied the statute.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she has expressed to Senator Josh Penry the County does not have an
issue with its School Districts, and the County has always split the funds equally with the School Districts,
even though it is only required to distribute 25 percent of the funds to the School Districts, and was
previously only required to distribute five percent of the funds to the School Districts. Commissioner
Conway stated the County has always maintained a great relationship with the School Districts, and the
statute is intended to improve relationships for counties who do not have as strong of a working
relationship with their school districts. Commissioner Rademacher inquired as to whether CCI requires
one percent from both the Bankhead-Jones and PILT funds to belong to the Public Lands Committee.
Mr. Warden stated the one percent is the basis for assessment. Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified CCI
requires dues for the County to be a member of Public Lands Committee; however, she is unsure of the
amount of the dues. She stated traditionally the County has taken one percent from the Bankhead-Jones
and PILT funds to pay the CCI dues; however, now the one percent is being used towards the CCI
membership cost. Commissioner Conway stated there was an issue with the new Chairman of the Public
Lands Committee assessing the County a special fee to belong the Public Lands Committee and he is
unsure if the issue has been resolved. Chair Garcia stated the matter was resolved by the County opting
not to belong to the Public Lands Committee. Commissioner Conway inquired as to why the County is
paying the fee if it is no longer a member of the Public Lands Committee. Mr. Warden clarified the
payment is for the overall CCI membership; not the Public Lands Committee. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
stated even though the County is not a member of the Public Lands Committee and does not pay the dues,
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 5 BC0016
the County will still be able to vote on Public Lands matters because the by-laws require a vote from each
county. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said distribution of payment in lieu of taxes for
2009. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AUTHORIZING ASSIGNMENT TO COLORADO HOUSING AND FINANCE AUTHORITY OF
PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND ALLOCATION OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PURSUANT TO THE
COLORADO PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND CEILING ALLOCATION ACT: Monica Mika, Director of
Administrative Services, stated this item of business is follow-up to a meeting the Board conducted a
couple of weeks ago regarding bond allocation for 2010, and this item of business will allow the 2008
allocation to be reassigned to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, in the amount of
$6,853,095.00. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to authorize said private activity bond assignment to the
Colorado Housing and Finance Authority. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH SERVICES AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Mr. Barker stated a copy of this agreement was previously provided to a
number of municipalities, and this copy has been approved and returned by the City of Platteville.
Mr. Warden stated there are seven otherfire districts and municipalities, and the agreement indicates there
is a new funding formula, which specifies the municipalities and fire districts will have to pay for dispatch
calls resulting in more than $10,000.00. He clarified the County will cover $10,000.00, based on the
agreements to support the Communications Center; however, the municipalities and fire districts will have
to pay for calls after the $10,000.00 has been exhausted. He stated the amount the City of Platteville must
pay is minimal. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the exact amount the City of Platteville is paying is
$55.33. Mr. Barker stated most of these agreements were returned last spring. Commissioner
Rademacher moved to approve said intergovernmental agreement and authorize the Chair to sign.
Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ITEMIZED LIST OF LEGAL HOLIDAYS DURING CALENDAR YEAR 2010: Mr. Warden
stated the County takes the same number of holidays as the State of Colorado; however, the Board
determines which days to take. He stated a long time ago the Board began substituting January 1st for
Colorado Day; an extra day around Thanksgiving for Martin Luther King's Birthday; and another day
around Christmas for Columbus Day. He stated the Board makes the determinations each year for when
each holiday will be observed. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve said itemized list of legal
holidays during Calendar Year 2010. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried
unanimously.
FIRST READING OF WELD COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE #2009-9, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING
AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 2 ADMINISTRATION, OF THE WELD COUNTY
CODE: Mr. Barker stated the sections of the Code being considered in the Ordinance are related to the
Continuity of Government Plan and they were discussed in a work session. He stated some of the issues
addressed include press releases, the delegation of authority to the Incident Commander by resolution,
and work rules for displaced County employees. He further stated the Ordinance includes a provision
regarding how the Board meetings will be conducted when the Continuity of Government Plan has been
activated, and the last sentence indicates electronic communication may take place, which will allow for
a recording of the proceedings to take place. Mr. Barker stated it occurred to him that the Board could
transfer the last sentence regarding electronic communication to Section 2-1-10, Conduct of Meetings;
therefore, the Board could utilize electronic communication under other circumstances. He stated there
have been no changes to the Ordinance since the Board reviewed it at its work session. Commissioner
Long inquired as to whether the Board has the ability to delegate authority to an Incident Commander
under the Weld County Home Rule Charter. Mr. Barker indicated the Board does have the authority and
the person who is delegated is subject to strict rules, according to the Resolution, and the Resolution may
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 6 BC0016
be revoked at any time. He stated a change was made to Section 2-15-30, Contracts; language was
added to state, "only if they are within the limits of such contract approval authority delegated to him or her
by the Board of County Commissioners". Commissioner Long inquired as to how the Board will have the
authority to pass the Resolution to delegate an Incident Commander when there are not three Board
members who are able to meet. Mr. Barker clarified the Resolution will be approved prior to an
emergency; however, it will not be in effect until an emergency has occurred and the need for the
Continuity of Government has been determined. He stated the concept for the Continuity of Government
Plan is to put as many contracts and delegations into place as possible prior to an emergency, and when
an emergency occurs, the Continuity of Government will go into effect. He stated if there are three Board
members available, the Board will continue to maintain authority; however, if there are not three members
available, the Continuity of Government Plan will allow for quick decisions to be made to ensure the health,
safety, and welfare of the County's employees and citizens until the Board is able to assess the situation.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated that Mr. Barker's suggestion regarding adding the item concerning
electronic communication to the Conduct of Meetings Section of the Code will allow the Board to pass
resolutions when three Board members are unable to meet at the same location. Commissioner Long
stated many counties only have three Commissioners; therefore, he does not want to have the Continuity
of Government be activated whenever there is less than three Board members available. He inquired as
to how many Commissioners must be unavailable before the Continuity of Government Plan is triggered.
Mr. Barker stated the Board needs to determine what it is comfortable with being designated as the triggers
for how and when the Continuity of Government Plan will go into effect, and then it will write those
determinations into the Resolution. He indicated he only foresees the Continuity of Government Plan being
triggered in the event of a catastrophe. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Barker indicated
the Board will determine the number of unavailable Commissioners that would warrant the Continuity of
Government Plan being activated. Mr. Barker stated the Continuity of Government Plan is likely the
process the Board would go through without a resolution; however, the Resolution will clarify and document
the steps involved in the process. Commissioner Rademacher stated this is only the first reading of the
Ordinance; therefore, the Board will have time to work on it. Chair Garcia gave the opportunity for public
testimony; however, there was none. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve Ordinance #2009-9 on
first reading. Commissioner Long seconded the motion. Commissioner Conway inquired as to whether
the Board needs to determine the number of unavailable Commissioners which will trigger the Continuity
of Government Plan to go into effect. Commissioner Rademacher indicated the Board will have time to
address the details at a work session. Commissioner Long stated that Mr. Barker indicated those details
will be included in the Resolution, and the Ordinance simply sets up the legal mechanism. Commissioner
Conway stated the more clarity there is regarding the process, the better it will be, since it will be a
confusing time when, and if, the Continuity of Government Plan is activated. Commissioner Long
suggested the Code require that the Resolution regarding the activation of the Continuity of Government
Plan must be passed unanimously, rather than by a majority vote, since it is has strong ramifications.
Mr. Barker stated Commissioner Long's suggestion would require amending the Weld County Home Rule
Charter; however, as long as the Board reaches a consensus, the Resolution should be approved
unanimously. Commissioner Long stated a future Board may be divided on the terms of the Resolution
and it may be changed from what this Board approves by a majority vote. Mr. Warden inquired as to
whether the activation of the Resolution will require a Board meeting. Mr. Barker stated it depends how
the Board chooses to set up the Resolution; however, if the majority of the Board is incapacitated, it would
be beneficial to have a trigger in place which does not require a Board meeting. He stated speed will be
a paramount concern in an emergency situation; therefore, it may be beneficial to identify an automatic
trigger, and even if there are three Board members available, there may be a delay before the members
are able to connect. Mr. Warden stated the Weld County Home Rule Charter has a provision regarding
special board meetings, which requires 24 hours of notice to be given and for a written notice to be placed
at the Board member's residence, when one of the Board members cannot be contacted. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated this is the first step in determining how to prepare for emergency situations and to have
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 7 BC0016
the least amount of disruption to County services. There being no further discussion, the motion carried
unanimously.
FIRST READING OF WELD COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE#2009-10, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING
AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 3 HUMAN RESOURCES, OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE: Mr. Barker stated this Ordinance and the next one address pandemic health
emergencies, including the H1N1 virus, and the Ordinances are separate because one addresses
Chapter 3 and the other addresses Chapter 14. He indicated the proposed changes include amending
Section 3-2-120, Reassignment of duties in event of emergency, to state, "As a condition of employment,
in the event of a declared emergency by the Board of County Commissioners, or in the case of a pandemic
health emergency declared by the Weld County Health Officer, employees who are not required to perform
essential functions in their own departments may be reassigned to assist with an emergency at the
direction of the Board of County Commissioners." He clarified the reassignment of duties section already
exists; however, the proposed language was added to state, "in the case of a pandemic health emergency
declared by the Weld County Health Officer." He stated the Health Officer will determine whether a
pandemic health emergency exists; however, the Board will make the reassignment determinations.
Mr. Barker stated Section 3-6-20 concerns sick leave and it proposes stating a doctor's note is not required
to return to work and the absence will not count as one of the employee's sick leave occurrences. He
stated the last proposed change is under the sick leave bank section and it is to state a doctor's note is
not required to return to work. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated there have been some changes since the
draft was handed out yesterday, based on comments received from Dr. Wallace and Patty Russell,
Director, Department of Human Resources. Mr. Barker confirmed he made some changes based on the
Department Heads' comments and the changes are reflected in the version of the Ordinance he presented.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the opportunity was given to the Department Heads and Elected Officials
to provide comments regarding the Ordinance, and they will have the opportunity to submit comments to
the Board between the first and second readings. Commissioner Conway indicated he understood the
Department Heads were to be given until the end of the week to submit their comments; therefore, the
Board is moving ahead too quickly regarding the Ordinances. He stated waiting one week will not slow
down the process very much and the Department Heads, and some of the Commissioners, just saw the
Ordinance for the first time yesterday. He further stated if the majority of the Board is satisfied with being
able to make changes to subsequent readings, he will defer to the decision; however, he is not comfortable
with the fact the Department Heads and Elected Officials were given until the end of the week to submit
their comments and the Board is moving ahead with the matter today. Commissioner Long stated he feels
comfortable moving forward with approving the first reading of the Ordinance because nothing will be
finalized before all of the comments have been received, and there will still be two more readings of the
Ordinance; therefore, there will be plenty of time for the Department Heads and Elected Officials to provide
their comments. He suggested sending a reminder to the Department Heads and Elected Officials to
solicit their comments. Chair Garcia stated the final reading of the Ordinance is scheduled for
October 12, 2009; therefore, there will be adequate time for the Department Heads to submit their
comments and for the Board to incorporate any recommendations and suggestions which may be received
into the Ordinance. Commissioner Rademacher indicated he would like to conduct a work session before
the second reading of the Ordinance because there is some terminology he would like to discuss.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer concurred with Commissioner Long's suggestion to provide a reminder to the
Department Heads and Elected Officials, and she suggested that Mr. Barker send an e-mail to remind
them there are two more readings and to request that any comments be submitted prior to the second
reading. Commissioner Conway indicated he is in support of the e-mail suggestion; however, he is still
uncomfortable with moving ahead with the first reading today because he is concerned people may
misunderstand and think the Board is moving ahead without their input. He indicated he wants to make
sure the process is inclusive to ensure the best possible policy is adopted. Chair Garcia gave the
opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given. Commissioner Long moved to approve
Ordinance #2009-10 on first reading. Commissioner Kirkmeyer seconded the motion. Commissioner
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 8 BC0016
Conway reiterated he will support the motion in order to move forward; however, he wants to be sure all
of the Department Heads and Elected Officials have a chance to submit their feedback before the second
reading occurs, and he supports Commissioner Rademacher's suggestion for a work session to take place
before the second reading in order to discuss the terminology. There being no further discussion, the
motion carried unanimously.
FIRST READING OF WELD COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE #2009-11, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING
AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 14 HEALTH AND ANIMALS, OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE: Mr. Barker stated the addition of Section 14-10-10, Declaration by Weld County Health
Officer, is proposed to state, "In addition to the authorities granted the Weld County Health Officer by and
through the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Health Officer shall have authority to declare a pandemic
health emergency if, in his or her professional judgment, illness or health conditions within Weld County
exist such that an emergency has been created thereby." He stated the proposed addition of
Section14-10-20, Press Releases, will state, "In the event that the Weld County Health Officer has
declared a pandemic health emergency to exist, the Health Officer shall be the designee of Weld County
Government to provide press releases regarding medical and health conditions, including, but not limited
to, what health precautions should be exercised by citizens and Weld County employees. All press
releases regarding the continuity of Weld County government operations shall be made by the Board of
County Commissioners, or by the Public Information Officer pursuant to the provisions of Section 2-15-20
of this Code." He stated this addition will include any press releases regarding the Continuity of
Government Plan; however, any press releases which are not related to medical and health conditions will
come from the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Garcia inquired as to whether
Section 14-10-30 will require Weld County employees to receive a vaccination, or whether it only gives the
authority to the Health Officer to provide the vaccinations. Mr. Barker indicated Section 14-10-30 does not
require employees to receive the vaccination; however, the Board can require vaccinations as a condition
of employment, for example, it may be necessary to make vaccinations a condition of employment for
Paramedic Services employees during a pandemic. Chair Garcia inquired as whether a policy exists which
delineates which positions may require vaccinations. Mr. Barker stated there is no such policy in place;
however, the Board may want to consider one. He stated the health care workers would likely be the first
group of employees to be vaccinated, and then perhaps employees with heavy contact with the public;
however, the Board would need to discuss the matter and make its determinations. Chair Garcia indicated
he would like to discuss this matter at the work session conducted for Ordinance #2009-10, since it is
germaine to the topic. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated she is not opposed to conducting another work
session; however, one work session has already occurred and staff was given directions as a result of the
Board's determinations in the work session. She stated Section 14-10-30 applies to the Health Officer and
it does not require employees to receive the vaccinations. Mr. Barker concurred with Commissioner
Kirkmeyer's interpretation. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated at the work session, the Board determined
it should be clear that the distribution of vaccinations is only to be by the Health Officer's direction. She
reiterated the intent of the Section is not to require employees to be vaccinated; however, the Board may
need to consider such a requirement, to ensure continuous government services, particularly paramedic
services. Chair Garcia stated the language in Section 14-10-30 states the Board of County
Commissioners needs to direct the Health Officer to provide vaccinations; therefore, the language may
need to be modified. Commissioner Conway stated Dr. Wallace will be under strict guidelines from State
and Federal government entities regarding who the vaccine is to be administered to; therefore, the
language may need to be modified; however, he does not want the definition to become too broad.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she was on the committee that developed the State guidelines regarding
this matter, and the language is broad intentionally, in order to allow the County and State Medical Officers
the flexibility to make decisions based on the particular situation occurring. She clarified the language in
Section 14-10-30 is intended to clearly indicate Dr. Wallace is in charge of the distribution of the vaccine.
Commissioner Conway stated his interpretation of Section 14-10-30 is that Dr. Wallace will come before
the Board to state how he intends to distribute the vaccine and the Board will grant approval. Mr. Barker
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 9 BC0016
concurred with Commissioner Conway's interpretation. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated she has
additional comments; however, she will reserve them for the upcoming work session. Chair Garcia gave
the opportunity for public testimony; however, there was none. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to
approve Ordinance #2009-11 on first reading. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried
unanimously.
PLANNING:
CONSIDER CANCELLATION AND RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW #325 -
CROWN CASTLE ATLANTIC COMPANY, LLC: Richard Hastings, Department of Public Works, stated
Crown Castle Atlantic Company, LLC, is a cell tower, and it is located south of State Highway 119 and near
the Del Camino area. Mr. Hastings stated the cell tower has been inspected by staff from the Departments
of Planning Services and Public Works, and it has been determined all of the improvements are complete;
therefore, release of the collateral is recommended. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said
cancellation and release of collateral for Site Plan Review #325. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER CANCELLATION AND RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FINAL PLAN, PF #613 - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC: Mr. Hastings stated Cattail Creek Group, LLC,
is an eight -lot subdivision located on County Roads 70 and 29, and it will be publicly maintained. He stated
the necessary improvements have been made for the Departments of Planning Services and Public Works;
therefore, release of the collateral is recommended. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said
cancellation and release of collateral for Planned Unit Development Final Plan #613. Seconded by
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER CANCELLATION AND RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT #1488 - FARFRUMWURKIN, LLLP/ROCK PRODUCTS OF COLORADO, LLC: Mr. Hastings
stated Farfrumwurkin, LLLP/ Rock Products of Colorado, LLC, is a small gravel pit located at County
Road 3.5 and State Highway 52. He stated the site has been inspected by the Departments of Planning
Services and Public Works and the site has completed its obligations; therefore, release of the collateral
is recommended. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said cancellation and release of
collateral for Use by Special Review Permit #1488. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER CANCELLATION AND RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR EDEN'S RESERVE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT, S #500 - MARK AND JACQUELYN EBERL: Mr. Hastings stated this is an eight -lot
development located on County Roads 32 and 7, and it will be privately maintained. He stated all of the
private and public improvements are complete, and the Departments of Planning Services and Public
Works recommend approval. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Hastings stated the site is
located west of County Road 7. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said cancellation and release
of collateral for Planned Unit Development Final Plan #500. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER CANCELLATION AND RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW, SPR #353 -
DAVSEL VENTURES, INC.: Mr. Hastings stated Daysel Ventures, Inc., is a small commercial building
located on Balsam Avenue in the eastern part of the City of Greeley. He stated all of the necessary
improvements have been completed for the Departments of Planning Services and Public Works.
Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said cancellation and release of collateral for Site Plan
Review #353. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER CANCELLATION AND RELEASE OF COLLATERAL FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
PF #552 - WILLIAM AND DELORES ROBERTS: Mr. Hastings stated this is a 10 -lot subdivision located
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 10 BC0016
near O and 27th Streets, and it will be publicly maintained. He stated all of the improvements have been
completed for the Departments of Planning Services and Public Works; therefore, release of the collateral
is recommended. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said cancellation and release of collateral for
Planned Unit Development Final Plan #552. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER RECORDED EXEMPTION #4815 - IVAR AND DONNA LARSON: In response to Chair
Garcia, Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated this and the following three items are
related; therefore, he will present them together; however, the Board needs to make separate motions
regarding each item of business. Mr. Gathman stated the site is located on Lots A and B of Recorded
Exemption #2956 and on Lots A and B of Recorded Exemption #2595, and it is located south of, and
adjacent to, State Highway 60, west of County Road 5, and adjacent to the Las Haciendas Planned Unit
Development (PUD). He stated there are three other PUDs within approximately two miles of the site. He
stated the applicant is proposing dividing Lot B of Recorded Exemption #2956 into two parcels, as well as
creating additional lots on Recorded Exemptions #4816, #4817, and #4818. Mr. Gathman stated there are
currently four lots, which were approved by the Board on January 29, 2001; therefore, the applicant is
proposing doubling the number of lots from four to eight. He stated the existing parcels are accessed by
a 60 -foot easement access and utility easement which is privately maintained. He stated the applicants
recorded the covenants for Recorded Exemptions #2956 and #2959 which govern future construction, such
as building height and setbacks, and access maintenance requirements for the 60 -foot access and utility
easement. Mr. Gathman stated the applicants have a provision in the existing covenants prohibiting the
future subdivision of lots; however, if the additional lots are approved, there will be a provision for the
recording of the amended covenants in order to reflect the additional lots. He stated staff has determined
the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the Weld County Code, Sections 24-8-40.A, through
24-8-40. O. He stated Section 24-8-40J states, "The proposal is consistent with sound land use planning
practices;" however, the number of lots to be created is consistent with a non -urban scale subdivision or
PUD. He stated the PUD process is the appropriate one for this proposal, since the recorded exemption
process does not provide the appropriate review process to address concerns such as access, emergency
services, and school district requirements. Mr. Gathman stated Section 24-8-40.K states, "The proposal
is consistent with the Statement of Purpose as expressed in Section 24-1-30 of this Chapter," which
includes assisting orderly and integrated development; promoting the health, safety, and welfare of the
residents of the County; and encouraging well -planned subdivisions by establishing adequate standards
for design and improvements. He stated staff has determined the number of lots sharing a common
access road is consistent with non -urban scale development and the proposal should be reviewed through
the PUD process. He stated the recorded exemption process is an exemption from the subdivision
process and it is not adequate to address access, emergency services, and school district concerns. He
stated no public notice is required for recorded exemptions as there is for PUDs; therefore, the public will
not have the chance to express its concerns with the proposed developments. Mr. Gathman stated staff
attempted to address some of the conditions of approval that would be required of a PUD, including
amending the protective covenants to include the proposed lots, a private improvements agreement for
road improvements, and collateral for access improvements. He stated the Berthoud Fire Protection
District requires the installation of a fire hydrant and Little Thompson School District RE2J also provided
a response. In response to Chair Garcia, Mr. Gathman stated referrals are not done for surrounding
property owners for recorded exemptions; however, the standard for referral agencies is the same, which
is that towns, school districts, and fire districts within three miles are notified. Chair Garcia inquired as to
whether the Department of Public Works considers the same items for PUDs and recorded exemptions.
Mr. Gathman suggested staff from the Department of Public Works will be able to better answer the
question; however, he thinks the drainage matters may be treated differently for PUDs and recorded
exemptions. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman reiterated the Sections of the Code
he referenced are Sections 24-8-40.J and 24-8-40.K. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether the
applicant has been advised the PUD process is recommended. Mr. Gathman stated staff has engaged
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 11 BC0016
in discussions with the applicant, and the case has a long history. He stated the applicant applied for a
PUD on the site in the 1990s; however, the request was denied, and subsequently Recorded Exemptions
#2956 and #2595 were approved. He stated there are different factors than when the applicant previously
applied for a PUD, and staff feels the PUD process is the appropriate one for the applicant. Mr. Gathman
clarified there are a number of PUDs in close proximity to the site which did not exist when the applicant
first applied for a PUD, and there were objections from the Town of Johnstown when the applicant
originally applied for a PUD.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated in 1994 the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) granted an access from State Highway 60 for a 9 -lot single family dwelling subdivision; however,
the application was denied, and the applicants subsequently created the two recorded exemptions, which
were approved in October, 2000. Mr. Carroll stated the Department views PUDs and recorded exemptions
differently, and drainage matters are not heavily considered for recorded exemptions; however, access
issues are considered important. He stated in this particular proposal the applicant is providing 60 feet of
access and utility easement, which is adequate, and the minimum for recorded exemptions is typically 30
feet. He further stated PUDs are required to have paved roads unless a waiver is granted by the Board
for gravel. Mr. Carroll indicated he would like to have an improvements agreement in place whether the
recorded exemptions are approved or a PUD is applied for, in order to address drainage, access, and road
materials.
Tom Honn, representative for Ivan and Donna Larson, stated the applicants purchased the property in the
early 1970s and in March, 1974, the first recorded exemption was granted to divide the property. He stated
the applicant was advised by County staff to apply for a minor subdivision in the early 1990s; however, due
to concerns from adjacent property owners and communities, the board denied the application. He stated
in the early 2000s the applicants requested to divide the two recorded exemptions, creating four lots, and
it was brought before the Board without staff support for the request; however, the Board unanimously
approved the two recorded exemptions. Mr. Honn stated many of the surrounding property owners who
were opposed to the subdivision have sold their properties and many of the properties have become parts
of the surrounding subdivisions, and neither the Town of Johnstown, nor the Town of Berthoud, have
expressed opposition to the recorded exemptions. He stated many of the Conditions of Approval included
in the Recorded Exemptions are the same conditions that would be required if the site went through the
subdivision process. He further stated Mr. Larson always intended to create a subdivision, and that is why
he created the covenants which he had recorded. Mr. Honn stated the Condition of Approval which states
the lots will not be further divided was intended to apply to the nine -lot subdivision, for which the application
was denied. He stated the Larson's own all of the property; therefore, there will not be a vote required
to change the covenants. He further stated whenever a subdivision process can be used it is highly
desirable; however, there are extenuating circumstances concerning the history of the property. He stated
between the recorded exemptions which were approved in 2001, the recorded exemptions proposed today,
and the access and water improvements, the site will be designed the same as the subdivision would have
been. Mr. Honn stated the development will have the same conditions as if a subdivision were approved
in the same location and for the same number of lots. He stated Mr. Larson always planned to have paved
access to the site if there are eight lots or more; however, if there are less than eight lots, a gravel road
will be sufficient. He stated there is no concern regarding entering into an improvements agreement, as
would be required with a subdivision. Mr. Honn stated the Little Thompson Water District is requesting that
Las Haciendas and this site provide a loop waterline; however, Las Haciendas is presently in bankruptcy;
therefore, the waterline issue has not been resolved. He stated the approval of the proposed recorded
exemptions will allow the waterline to be built through the property to Las Haciendas, which will create
better water pressure and fire protection for the entire area. He stated the school districts and other
referral agencies that the subdivision process will involve, have already expressed their conditions, staff
has incorporated those into the recorded exemptions, and Mr. Larson does not object to any of the
conditions. Mr. Honn reiterated the subdivision process would be appropriate, if the previous recorded
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 12 BC0016
exemptions had not been granted, and the same matters have been addressed as the subdivision process
will address. He stated it is important to consider the big picture, and it is the same development as a
subdivision will ultimately be. Chair Garcia inquired as to where the neighboring dairy is located. Mr. Honn
stated there is a dairy located approximately one mile to the east of the location, between 1-25 and County
Road 7, in Larimer County. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman stated Recorded
Exemptions #2956 and #2959 were approved on January 29, 2001. Mr. Honn clarified the minor
subdivision was denied in the early 90s. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to why the applicant is not
applying for a PUD, rather than applying for numerous recorded exemptions. Mr. Honn indicated he was
not involved with Mr. Larson's decision process; however, the direction Mr. Larson chose is a result of
advice he received from the Department of Planning Services. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Gathman clarified it is proposed that two A lots and two B lots be divided; therefore, there will be a total
of eight lots, if the exemptions are approved. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Gathman stated the A lots are eligible to be divided because they were approved in 2001 and the Code
prohibiting future divisions of A lots did not exist until 2004; therefore, the applicants are eligible to split the
A lots on the site. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Gathman stated the surrounding PUDs
were not approved before 2000; however, he does not have the dates with him. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Mr. Gathman confirmed the Town of Johnstown opposed the subdivision;
however, it has not expressed opposition to the proposed recorded exemptions. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
stated when the PUD was considered in 1994, there were additional matters being considered, including
the application for an adjacent subdivision. She stated at the time the request was denied there were no
existing PUDs in the area, there were referral agencies in opposition, and there was an issue with the
access onto State Highway 60. She indicated the matter was ultimately considered by the District Court.
Mr. Carroll provided the document number for the subdivision hearing certification. In response to
Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Gathman stated referrals were provided to the special districts, including
the fire, school, and water districts, and there were no objections to the proposed recorded exemptions;
however, conditions were submitted. Mr. Gathman stated the water district requested a fire hydrant and
the school district requested a cash -in -lieu payment at the time the building permit is issued. In response
to Chair Garcia, Mr. Gathman stated all the requests have been incorporated into the development
standards; however, CDOT indicated the applicant will need to apply for an upgraded access permit. In
response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman stated each recorded exemption application was in
an individual packet; however, the packets should have all been received by the referral agencies at the
same time.
In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, stated the
Johnstown urban growth boundary does not reach this area, and the Town of Berthoud is undeveloped
and has no sewer lines in the area; therefore, it is considered undefined. Mr. Honn stated he is not aware
of any intent to annex the property into the Towns of Johnstown or Berthoud, based on the distance and
an inability to provide utility services. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Honn stated neither
Town requested to annex the site and the letters only indicate there is no objection to the recorded
exemptions. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Gathman confirmed the School District is
requesting that a light pole be installed. Mr. Honn stated the applicant has no objections to the request.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether the applicant is required to pay the road impact fee for
each recorded exemption. Mr. Gathman stated the applicant will pay the road impact fees at the time the
building permits are applied for. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether the road impact fee is
the same for subdivisions as it is for recorded exemptions. Mr. Gathman stated road impact fees are
collected whenever a lot is built on in the County. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether there
are different sewer requirements for recorded exemptions, as opposed to PUDS. Mr. Gathman stated the
Department of Public Health and Environment has a requirement that a builder does not exceed one septic
system per 2.5 acres, and it applies to all of the areas within the PUD, including roads, open space, and
drainage areas. He stated there is not a similar standard in place for recorded exemptions. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated there is no requirement that public water be utilized for recorded exemptions and she
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 13 BC0016
inquired as to whether there is such a requirement for PUDS. Mr. Gathman stated there is a requirement
for a public water system for non -urban developments in PUDs; however, there is a provision for
developments which are outside of the proximity to public water and have an 80 -acre lot, in which the
applicant may have nine lots or less on individual wells; however, wells would not work for this property
since it is not large enough. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman stated the total
acreage of the site is approximately 20 acres, and public water will be utilized. Further responding to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Gathman stated as long as the development is utilizing public water, the
applicant is permitted to have lots as small as one acre in size; however, the applicant does not have any
proposed lots smaller than two acres. Chair Garcia gave the opportunity for public testimony; however,
there was none. He declared a three minute recess. Upon reconvening, Chair Garcia inquired as to
whether the Conditions of Approval are the same for each of the proposed Recorded Exemptions, and
Mr. Gathman indicated they are the same. In response to Chair Garcia, Mr. Honn indicated the applicant
is in agreement with all of the conditions of approval and finds them to be appropriate. Mr. Gathman stated
he has a clarification regarding the development standards; A lots cannot be split again through the
recorded exemption process; however, the B lots can be split again in five years. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the original A lots for Recorded
Exemptions #2956 and #2959, can only be split one more time, if the recorded exemption was granted
prior to 2004. Mr. Honn stated the Code states A lots cannot be further divided; however, B lots may be;
however, the applicant does not intend for any further subdivision to occur for any of the lots. In response
to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Honn reiterated future division of B lots would not be prohibited if the
applicants changed their mind; however, the A lots will not be eligible for additional division. In response
to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Carroll stated he reviewed the proposed Recorded Exemptions under
the guidelines for recorded exemptions and did not review them under the PUD guidelines; however,
because of the layout, it is similar to a PUD; therefore, he made sure there is 60 feet of right-of-way.
Mr. Carroll stated there is an access point to State Highway 60 and there is an access code in place;
however, it is only for the roadway located east of 1-25. He stated an all-weather surface is necessary;
however, he needed to know whether the Board is going to approve the proposed Recorded Exemptions
or direct the applicant to apply for a PUD, in order to determine whether a gravel surface is sufficient or
a paved roadway is necessary. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Carroll clarified the gravel
surface will be sufficient if the matter is considered as recorded exemptions. In response to Commissioner
Rademacher, Mr. Carroll stated the Environmental Overview Study identifies the access code for the area
from 1-25 to the east; however, it does not include the roadway located from 1-25 to the west, and this
property is located west of 1-25, on State Highway 60. Commissioner Long inquired as to whether the
referral to CDOT is handled differently depending on whether it is concerning a recorded exemption or a
PUD. Mr. Carroll indicated he believes CDOT does handle recorded exemption referrals differently than
PUD referrals. He stated CDOT generally grants one access per parcel and sometimes one access will
be granted for multiple parcels, and if there is an opportunity for the access to be from a secondary road,
CDOT prefers the secondary road be used. He stated when dealing with PUDs, CDOT often requires
acceleration and deceleration lanes, depending on the situation. Mr. Carroll stated CDOT granted the
access for a nine -lot subdivision in 1994; however, he does not know if there is more recent
documentation. Mr. Gathman stated the latest referral from CDOT states one access shall be allowed
from State Highway 60 to serve all of the lots and an access permit must be obtained to authorize all of
the traffic being proposed. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Gathman stated there is no
public notification requirement for recorded exemptions. Commissioner Kirkmeyer concurred with staff's
comments that the recorded exemptions should be denied because the development should be reviewed
through a PUD process, in order to consider sewer, access, drainage, and school district matters, and in
order to provide public notice. She stated the applicants were advised by staff to apply for a PUD and they
chose not to, and Section 24-8-20 states recorded exemptions must not be for the purpose of evading the
requirements and intent of the chapter; therefore, she will not support the proposed Recorded Exemptions.
Chair Garcia stated there have not been any changes proposed to any of the Conditions of Approval or
Development Standards and the applicants have agreed to the existing Conditions of Approval and
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 14 BC0016
Development Standards. Commissioner Conway stated the Board heard testimony that the applicants
chose this path after discussions with Weld County Planning staff, there is no opposition to the recorded
exemptions, and the Towns of Berthoud and Johnstown are in support of the Recorded Exemptions;
therefore, he finds it difficult to deny the requests. Commissioner Rademacher stated he concurs with
Commissioner Kirkmeyer; however, the same requirements are being met as if the applicants go through
a PUD process. He stated there is likely not any opposition to the recorded exemptions because there was
no public notice provided; therefore, he will not support the Recorded Exemptions. Commissioner Long
stated to approve the proposed Recorded Exemptions will set a precedent in the way recorded exemptions
are viewed, and the Code does not indicate this is a current use for recorded exemptions. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated her decision is not based on anything that occurred in 1994, and the situation and
circumstances were different in 1994. She stated she is concerned there was no public notice provided
and she does not know if the surrounding Towns considered all four of the recorded exemptions together,
which may be the reason the Towns did not comment. Commissioner Conway clarified the Towns did
comment; they indicated they are not opposed to the proposed Recorded Exemptions. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated she is still not sure the Towns considered the four Recorded Exemptions together. Chair
Garcia indicated he concurs the applicants should apply for a PUD, based on the density of the
development. He stated the developer and staff have worked hard to determine all of the appropriate
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards; however, the lack of public input concerns him. He
stated the proposed development is consistent with the other developments in the area, and although he
would have preferred the PUD process, the public interest has been adequately addressed by the
Conditions of Approval; therefore, he is willing to support the proposed Recorded Exemptions.
Commissioner Conway stated the applicants followed the PUD process and were denied and, as a result
of the denial, applied for the initial recorded exemptions. He stated there may be more public input in a
PUD process; however, the development is consistent with the surrounding area and he is confident that
the staff for the Towns of Johnstown and Berthoud noticed the proposed Recorded Exemptions are in the
same area. Commissioner Rademacher concurred with Commissioner Long regarding not wanting to
establish a precedent by approving the four Recorded Exemptions. Commissioner Long stated there have
been PUDs denied and then passed a year or two later, as a result of changes in the area; therefore, he
is not judging this matter on what happened in 1994. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to deny Recorded
Exemption #4815. Commissioner Long seconded the motion. Upon the request for a roll call vote, the
motion passed three to two, with Chair Garcia and Commissioner Conway being opposed.
CONSIDER RECORDED EXEMPTION #4816 - IVAR AND DONNA LARSON: Chair Garcia inquired if
there is any additional information regarding Recorded Exemption #4816. Mr. Gathman and Mr. Carroll
indicated they do not have any additional information. Mr. Honn stated the applicants are satisfied with
the proposed Conditions of Approval for this Recorded Exemption as well as the following two Recorded
Exemptions. He inquired as to whether it is possible to send notices before making determinations
regarding the proposed recorded exemptions, to allow the opportunity for feedback, as opposed to the
applicants being required to spend a tremendous amount of time and money to apply for a PUD.
Mr. Barker indicated there is no process in place in the Code for notifying surrounding property owners of
proposed recorded exemptions; therefore, he is reluctant to advise the Board to continue the matter and
provide notice to the surrounding property owners. Chair Garcia inquired as to if there will be any benefits
to the applicant, if the Board refers the remaining proposed Recorded Exemptions back to staff.
Mr. Gathman indicated staff can discuss the matter with the applicants; however, it is a separate
application and fee, and his supervisors would have to advise him regarding what concessions may be
made to take into account regarding the applicants' history. Commissioner Rademacher stated the
applicant may begin the PUD process immediately; however, the applicants spent $2,500.00 per proposed
recorded exemption. Mr. Gathman indicated the applicants can request a refund; however, considering
how far into the process staff is, it is unlikely even a partial refund will be awarded. In response to
Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Barker indicated it will not make a difference at this point whether the
Board refers the matter back to staff or denies the Recorded Exemptions. In response to Commissioner
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 15 BC0016
Rademacher, Mr. Gathman confirmed the applicants may begin the PUD process immediately.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated if the recorded exemptions had been withdrawn earlier a refund may have
been appropriate; however, staff has already invested its time.
Ivar Larson, applicant, stated he was not trying to avoid the PUD process; he initially applied for a PUD
and provided payment with the application. Mr. Larson stated the Planning Services staff advised him
there might be a problem with the nine -lot subdivision and that creating eight lots through recorded
exemptions was a better option. He stated his check was returned and he waited five years before
applying for Recorded Exemptions #2956 and #2959, at which time he had implemented and recorded all
of the subdivision requirements, including pavement, dedicated access, and the highway permit. He stated
it became apparent Las Haciendas will not be granted any more building permits until the waterline is
installed; however, he cannot afford to install the waterline for only four lots. He reiterated he is not trying
to bypass the subdivision process, and the court case Commissioner Kirkmeyer referenced occurred while
he was going through the minor subdivision process. He stated he is a registered engineer in the State
of Colorado, has completed many projects for Weld County, and because he values quality, he has
provided much more than what the recorded exemption process requires. He stated he has gotten
conflicting advice from different Weld County planners over the years, and he is back to the same place
where he started. Commissioner Conway stated he understands the procedural concerns the Board has;
however, it is a shame what the County has done to Mr. Larson and his wife. Commissioner Rademacher
stated Mr. Larson was most recently advised to apply for a PUD by the Planning Services staff, which is
the correct advice. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated for the record the previous discussion regarding
Recorded Exemption #4815 was considered for this and the following proposed recorded exemptions, and
she moved to deny Recorded Exemption #4816, based on previous discussion. Commissioner Long
seconded the motion. Upon the request for a roll call vote, the motion passed three to two, with Chair
Garcia and Commissioner Conway being in opposition.
CONSIDER RECORDED EXEMPTION #4817 - IVAR AND DONNA LARSON: Mr. Gathman clarified the
first two proposed Recorded Exemptions were on lots under five acres; however, this lot is approximately
eight acres in size, and the lot for the following proposed recorded exemption is approximately seven acres
in size. Chair Garcia gave the opportunity for public input; however, there was none. Commissioner Long
moved to deny Recorded Exemption #4817, based on previous discussion. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
seconded the motion. Upon the request for a roll call vote, the motion carried three to two, with Chair
Garcia and Commissioner Conway being in opposition.
CONSIDER RECORDED EXEMPTION #4818 - IVAR AND DONNA LARSON: Based on previous
discussion, Commissioner Rademacher moved to deny Recorded Exemption #4818. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer seconded the motion. Upon the request for a roll call vote, the motion carried three to two, with
Chair Garcia and Commissioner Conway being in opposition.
SECOND READING OF WELD COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE #2009-8, IN THE MATTER OF
REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTERS 22 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 23
ZONING, 24 SUBDIVISIONS, 26 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, AND 27 PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE: Commissioner Rademacher moved to read the
Ordinance by title only. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Barker read said Ordinance into the record by title. Mr. Mueller stated the first reading took place on
August 17, 2009, and a work session was conducted on August 24, 2009. He stated the first concern
addressed at the work session was related to Use by Special Review permits and identifying what
constitutes a major change. He stated the determination of what constitutes a major change requires
professional staff discretion and staff strives to make consistent determinations, and it takes into
consideration whether the change has off -site impacts, causes a change in the fundamental use of the
property or its structures, or if it adversely affects the health, safety, or welfare of citizens. He stated the
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 16 BC0016
discussion did not result in any proposed changes to the Ordinance; however, he wanted the Board to
have the information. Mr. Mueller stated the next issue discussed at the work session concerned two
aspects of semi -trailers being used as accessory storage. He stated the proposed language will read,
"semi -trailers as accessory storage," as opposed to "storage of semi -trailers." He stated a question
regarding licensing for the semi -trailers was asked during the work session and he researched the
ramifications of removing the licensing requirement for semi -trailers used for storage. Mr. Mueller stated
owners of derelict vehicles in the County are allowed three remedies; they can screen, remove, or license
the vehicle; therefore, there may be a perception of unfairness by the public if semi -trailers being used as
storage are not required to be licensed. He stated after the initial verification of the license is conducted,
the license is not verified by Planning Services staff on additional occasions. Mr. Mueller stated the Weld
County Code Compliance Officials indicated the licensing provides a clear guideline to determine if a
vehicle is derelict. Commissioner Rademacher indicated he brought up the matter at the work session and
he maintains that it is not appropriate to require a storage vehicle to be licensed every year. He stated he
owns vehicles which are not licensed because they are not driven on any roads; however, they are used
to conduct his daily business; therefore, he does not consider the vehicles to be derelict and the definition
needs to be re-examined. He further stated he does not think he is being inconsistent by stating
semi -trailers used for storage and some derelict vehicles, depending on their use, do not require licensing.
Mr. Mueller stated if the Board wants to remove the requirement for semi -trailers used as storage to be
licensed, it is found in newly proposed Section 23-4-900, Item B.3. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated she
will support deleting Item B.3 because the owners will be required to license the semi -trailer if the use
changes from storage. Commissioner Rademacher indicated the tires are generally removed from semi-
trailers being used for storage and often people build ramps to access the unit; therefore, it is clear if the
unit is being used for storage purposes. Chair Garcia indicated semi -trailers are different from cargo
containers, and a more temporary type of storage. Commissioner Conway moved to delete
Section 23-4-900. B.3 and renumber accordingly. Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously. Mr. Mueller stated the other matter discussed in the work session in regard to semi-
trailers was using them as signs. He stated the Code excludes vehicles used in daily operation from being
considered a portable sign; therefore, he does not see a conflict or need to change the Code.
Commissioner Rademacher inquired as to whether it matters if the vehicle advertises a commercial
business or not. Mr. Mueller stated it does matter whether it is commercial; it matters whether the vehicle
is being used regularly, as opposed to a storage or derelict vehicle. He stated the next item discussed at
the work session was regarding cargo containers and the observation was made that railroad cars may
be considered to be cargo containers; therefore, there is proposed language to add to Section 23.1.90,
as Item f, to state under the definition of cargo container that a railroad car will not be considered a cargo
container. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated she is satisfied with the language and it addresses her
concern regarding railroad cars. Commissioner Rademacher indicated he has an issue regarding cargo
containers requiring building permits; however, it is not something that can be changed today. Mr. Mueller
concurred and stated the requirement is defined by the International Building Code. Commissioner
Rademacher stated cargo containers often weigh more than semi -beds; however, they are not required
to be tied down. Mr. Mueller stated the Building Department has made a concerted effort to not require
tie -downs unless the unit is located in a floodplain, and Commissioner Rademacher indicated that is
appropriate; however, it does not seem appropriate for a building permit to be required for a cargo
container, unless it has utilities hooked up to it. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to add Item f to
Section 23-1-90. Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr.
Mueller indicated there are no other issues discussed at the work session. In response to Commissioner
Rademacher, Mr. Mueller indicated the final reading will occur on September 28, 2009. Chair Garcia gave
the opportunity for public testimony; however, there was none. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to
approve Ordinance #2009-8 on second reading, as amended. Commissioner Conway seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously.
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 17 BC0016
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. Ordinance #2009-8 was approved on second reading, and Ordinances #2009-9,
#2009-10, and #2009-11 were approved on first reading.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST:
Weld County Clerk to th
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the Bo
WELD C,pj11'4Y, COLORADO
Sean P. Conway
i
'tBarbar kmeyer
David E. Long
Minutes, September 9, 2009 2009-2432
Page 18 BC0016
Hello