HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081169.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
APRIL 21, 2008
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, April 21, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chair Pro-Tern and on roll call the following
members were present, constituting a quorum of the members thereof:
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Chair- EXCUSED
Commissioner Robert D. Masden, Pro-Tern
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jennifer VanEgdom
Controller, Barb Connolly
MINUTES: Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of April 16, 2008, as printed. Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the Certification of
Hearings conducted on April 16, 2008, as follows: 1) USR #1644 - Jack and Vicki Pierson; and
2) USR #1642 - Lucerne Commons, LLC. Commissioner Long seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: Brad Taylor, City of Greeley resident, stated he is member of the Weld Advocacy
Network on Disabilities, which is a group of individuals dedicated to disability and advocacy issues. He
stated the group previously questioned the grievance procedure for the Weld County Transportation
Program, specifically regarding transportation needs for those with disabilities. He further stated
approximately one year ago, a large group of individuals met with Walk Speckman, Director, Department
of Human Services, to discuss the transportation program, and he attended the meeting as an advocate.
Mr. Taylor stated during the meeting, it was apparent to him that a solution needed to be found so that
disabled citizens could access the transportation program in order to receive the rides they need. He
indicated he inquired about a grievance procedure, and Mr. Speckman and Commissioner Garcia
confirmed that one existed. He stated the group waited a long time to receive a copy of the grievance
procedure, and he believes that the copy of the grievance procedure he finally received was thrown
together haphazardly since the procedure did not contain a specific outline of the protocol to file a
grievance. He stated he does not personally utilize the Weld County Transportation Program, as he has
2008-1169
BC0016
F96—(2 q -o
alternate transportation; however, he has had experience in being involved with a class action lawsuit. He
indicated he is here to urge the Commissioners to listen to the problems experienced by residents with
access to the transportation program. He further indicated the group would prefer not to seek legal action,
as the group is looking for cooperation; however, if needed, the group will take whatever steps necessary.
He summarized the Commissioners need to take a stand and get involved in the grievance procedure so
that the issues with the lack of transportation may be resolved.
Sherri Kaspar, Town of Kersey resident, provided various documents for the record, marked Exhibits A
through F, and indicated she is the current Chair of the Weld Advocacy Network on Disabilities (WAND)
group. She stated the group meets once per month, and on March 29, 2007, a forum was held in order
to discuss issues to be resolved. She indicated none of the promises made at the forum have come to
fruition, and explained that Don Coloroso was the Co-Chair of the group last year. She stated a letter was
sent to Commissioner Garcia,as referenced in Exhibit B,which asked specific questions,and the response
received back from Commissioner Garcia, marked Exhibit C, did not answer the questions. She clarified
no issues have been resolved within the past year, and the group has tried to be peaceful. She indicated
she depends on the County transportation program, and she expressed her concerns regarding her
request for transportation being denied. She stated an ambulance was instead dispatched to her home
to transport her to a doctor's appointment for routine laboratory work,and it is ridiculous for County citizens
to be wasting tax dollars in the amount of$1,800.00 on an unnecessary ambulance ride. She clarified the
situation was embarrassing as her neighbors witnessed the situation and she was loaded onto a stretcher
instead of being allowed to ride in her wheelchair. She stated something must be done about the way the
program operates, and if the County continues to refuse transportation, tax dollars will be wasted for
ambulances to be dispatched. Ms. Kaspar clarified the transportation is now limited to two days a week,
Tuesdays and Thursdays; however, she normally has appointments on Monday afternoons. She stated
the exhibits provided clearly indicate that the group is requesting the Board's help, and if help is not
provided, the group will be forced to take drastic means.
Steve Teets, City of Greeley resident, stated he is present to speak on the difficulties of citizens obtaining
transportation in order to be able to go to medical appointments. He referenced the American with
Disabilities Act(ADA)standards,which require that public transportation be accessible; however, citizens
are not able to obtain adequate transportation when they are informed that only certain days of the week
are permitted. He clarified the schedules within doctor's offices vary, due to patient load, and a doctor
should not have to schedule a patient according the transportation schedule. He further referenced the
ADA standards,which state no entity shall discriminate against individuals with disabilities,which includes
the provision of transportation to individuals with disabilities. He stated when rides are denied by the
County,the individuals with disabilities are denied accessibility,which is unacceptable. Mr.Teets indicated
citizens have been subjected to numerous trip denials, or mis-trips, late pickups and/or return trips, and
trips with excessive trip lengths. He clarified the Transportation Program is not proving to be a beneficial
service, as these problems are happening on a regular basis. He stated he is requesting that the County
fully comply with Medicaid rules and ADA standards, as well as an accessible grievance process. He
clarified he understands that funds are tight for this program; however, the County should explore other
opportunities of funding which are available. He stated all parties should work together in order to
implement a good County bus system, which may include the possibility of a Regional Transportation
Authority (RTA).
Ms. Kaspar further stated her physician has sent letters to the County, to specifically request
accommodations. She indicated early morning pickups, around 8:00 a.m., are hampered by the bus
pickup service for the migrant children enrolled in the Head Start Program. She indicated her return trips
are happening way too late,therefore, her doctor has requested that she not wait for a return ride for more
than an hour; however, she has repeatedly waited over eight hours for a return ride. She expressed her
concerns regarding the current grievance procedure, indicating there is no current paper trail to track
Minutes, April 21, 2008 2008-1169
Page 2 BC0016
complaints. She indicated she understands that the Board cannot take action to fix transportation
problems if they are not notified of the problems which are occurring. She further indicated citizens cannot
bring complaints to the Board if there is no form to fill out. She requested that a uniform grievance form
be created, which can be placed within every County bus, so that complaints can be recognized.
Commissioner Long expressed his appreciation to the WAND group for their attendance and for
expressing their concerns. He stated the County has re-evaluated the Transportation Program, and is now
in the process of revamping the system. He indicated he is interested in learning about the issues which
plague the affected citizens, and he would like to meet with members of the group to hear additional
information. In response to Commissioner Long, Ms. Kaspar indicated the WAND group will meet on
Thursday,April 24,at noon,at Connections for Independent Living. She indicated the documents provided
may be discussed, and she invited Commissioner Long to attend the meeting. Commissioner Long
indicated he will attend the meeting. Chair Pro-Tem Masden expressed his appreciation to the members
of the group for their attendance, and indicated the Board will work to move forward to resolve the matter.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the consent agenda as printed.
Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
WARRANTS: Barb Connolly, Controller, presented the following warrants for approval by the Board:
All Funds $1,370,472.66
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the warrants as presented by Ms. Connolly. Commissioner Long
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
BIDS:
PRESENT COUNTY NEWSPAPER BID - DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE: Ms. Connolly read the names
of the four vendors that submitted a bid into the record. She stated this bid will be presented for approval
on April 21, 2008.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF INTERSECTION AT CRS 88 AND 45: Leon Sievers,
Department of Public Works, stated the intersection of County Roads 88 and 45 will be closed for four
days, for the replacement of a drainage culvert. He gave a brief description of the detour route, and
indicated water will be utilized for dust abatement, if necessary. Commissioner Rademacher moved to
approve said temporary closure. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AGREEMENT FOR CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENT,GRANT OF PERMANENT EASEMENT
AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CR 2;AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN ANY NECESSARY DOCUMENTS - PERKINS LAND AND LIVESTOCK III, LLC:
Mr. Sievers stated this is the fifth of twelve parcels to be acquired for the necessary improvements to the
County Road 2 Road Project, being completed in conjunction with Adams County. He indicated the
Department is acquiring a total of 25,893 square feet,or 0.954 acres,of temporary construction easement,
within four separate parcels, for a total amount of$1,188.00, which is ten percent of the land value. He
further stated 8,300 square feet of permanent easement will be acquired, in two separate parcels, in the
amount of $1,910.00, which is approximately fifty percent of the land value, therefore the total
compensation to the landowner is in the amount of$3,098.00. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve
said agreement and easements, and authorize the Chair to sign any necessary documents. Seconded
by Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, April 21, 2008 2008-1169
Page 3 BC0016
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CR 2 AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - ROBERT AND SUZAN LEWIS: Mr. Sievers stated this is the sixth of
twelve parcels to be acquired for the County Road 2 Road Improvements Project,and the parcel is located
on the north side of County Road 2, approximately one-quarter mile east of County Road 39. He stated
the Department will acquire 1,400 square feet of temporary construction easement, in the amount of
$300.00, which is the minimum reimbursement amount. He further stated the Department will also
reimburse the landowner the sum of$112.50 for the cost of replacement of an existing fence, therefore,
the total compensation will equal$412.50. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said easement
and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously. In
response to Chair Pro-Tem Masden, Mr. Sievers indicated Weld County has now secured half of the
necessary easements for the project, which includes a majority of temporary construction easements;
however, two parcels of permanent easement remain to be acquired.
CONSIDER AGREEMENT FOR 2008 BRIDGE EXPANSION JOINT REPAIRS AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR
TO SIGN - TLM CONSTRUCTORS, INC.: Wayne Howard, Department of Public Works, stated the
contract provides for the annual bridge rehabilitations, and this year the rehabilitation will focus on bridge
decks and expansion joists. He stated five bridges will receive the necessary repairs, the annual budget
for these repairs is $200,000.00, and the contractor will complete the necessary work for $197,302.40.
In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Howard stated a handful of bridges are long enough to
contain expansion joints, and staff will repair the ones which need the most amount of work. He further
stated a couple more bridges may be added to the list in 2009 and 2010. Commissioner Rademacher
moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia,
the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES-WELD COUNTY ENGINEERING
(KOENIG PIT): Christopher Woodruff, Assessor, stated each of the three tax abatement petitions are
similar in nature; however, a petition was filed for each pit separately. He stated the petitions are for the
2007 tax year, for correction of production values from 2006, and staff inadvertently placed a taxable
abstract code on each property, therefore, a tax bill was generated. He explained each of the properties
should have been tax exempt, since they are owned and produced by the County, therefore, the values
need to be corrected through the abatement process. He stated the original assessed valuation for the
Koenig Pit was in the amount of$22,410.00, therefore, the recommended abatement will create a refund
in the amount of $1,318.54. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Woodruff indicated he is
unsure whether a petition will need to be filed for the Hoekstra Pit,and he explained how the taxable value
on the properties of the three pits were able to roll forward with the next tax year. He clarified the value
will remain; however, the abstract code will now indicate the property is owned by the County, therefore,
a taxable value will not be placed on the property. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said
petition, based on staffs recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES -WELD COUNTY ENGINEERING
(PIERCE PIT): Mr.Woodruff indicated this petition is similar to the situation described in the previous item
of business, and the original assessed value was in the amount of $19,970.00, therefore, the
recommended abatement will create a refund in the amount of$1,167.32. Commissioner Long moved to
approve said petition, based on staffs recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES -WELD COUNTY ENGINEERING
(GEISERT PIT): Mr. Woodruff indicated this petition is similar to the situation described in the previous
two items of business, and the original assessed value was in the amount of$49,030.00, therefore, the
Minutes, April 21, 2008 2008-1169
Page 4 BC0016
recommended abatement will create a refund in the amount of$3,374.84. Commissioner Garcia moved
to approve said petition, based on staffs recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher,the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY ASSEMBLY OF MORE THAN 350 PERSONS ON
MAY 18, 2008 - FRANK'S RIDE FOR CHILDREN, C/O GREG RISEDORF: Bruce Barker, County
Attorney,stated the Temporary Assembly Permit is being applied for in conjunction with the Special Events
Liquor License in the following item of business. Chair Pro-Tem Masden called up the following item of
business to be discussed concurrently. Greg Risedorf, applicant, stated the 22nd Annual Frank's Ride
for Children fund-raiser,which benefits the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Colorado, Inc.,will be held on May
18, 2008 this year. He stated the event has taken place within Weld County for the past several years,
and explained that the fund-raiser is a well organized motorcycle ride, which has had no significant
problems within past years. He further stated the necessary agencies have been notified of the event,
including the Longmont Emergency Services Unit, Air Life of Denver, Colorado State Patrol, and the Weld
County Sheriffs Office. He stated the event generally draws a large number of riders, all attendees are
given a wristband before they enter the site, according to age,to control the service of alcohol, and all staff
members of the event also act as security guards. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Risedorf
indicated mainly motorcycles participate in the ride; however, the ride is open to all motorized vehicles.
Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Risedorf indicated the number of attendees depends upon
the weather conditions; however, he expects approximately 900 to 1,300 attendees this year.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said application. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN -
MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF COLORADO, INC.: Mr. Barker stated due to Statute requirements,
this item of business must be opened to the public in order to obtain public input. No public testimony was
provided regarding the matter. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said application and
authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR SAFETY GRANT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Paul Wood,
Sheriff's Office, stated the application, submitted to the Colorado Department of Transportation, requests
grant funds to administer the Checkpoint Colorado Program. He stated the funds will be utilized to
compensate officers for the overtime hours utilized to provide sobriety checkpoints within the County. In
response to Chair Pro-Tem Masden, Mr. Wood stated the application is requesting the necessary funds
to complete five checkpoints; however, additional checkpoints will also be completed in conjunction with
the Weld County DUI Task Force, which includes seven participating agencies. Responding to
Commissioner Rademacher, the grant funds requested from CDOT total$24,900.00, the matching funds
will come from normal operating funds, and the application did not require an equal matching share.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said application and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by
Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO WELD FAITH PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL: Commissioner Rademacher
moved to appoint Michael Stotts to the Weld Faith Partnership Council, with a term to expire November 1,
2008. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, April 21, 2008 2008-1169
Page 5 BC0016
PLANNING:
CONSIDERACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF PAYMENT IN FULFILLMENT OF OBLIGATION FOR
IMPROVEMENTS FOR COUNTY ROAD 80 STABILIZATION AND DUST CONTROL, FOR AN EIGHT
(8) LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION, MF#1001 -W.B. FARMS ESTATES, LLC: Don Carroll, Department of
Public Works, stated the applicant has fulfilled the obligation to provide improvements to County Road 80.
He stated the agreement was for a period of five years, and stated that as each lot was sold, money would
be placed into escrow, up to a total of$14,500.00. He further stated this development created 25 percent
of the traffic impact along this road, therefore, the road was stabilized, and the applicant has fulfilled its
obligation. He indicated the site is located three miles west of the Town of Ault, and one mile south of
State Highway 14. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve acknowledgment of receipt of payment.
Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER SETTING AMENDED HEARING DATE, SETTING OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA FOR APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF USE BY
SPECIAL REVIEW #1629 FOR A MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY OR PUBLIC AGENCY:
Mr. Barker stated a hearing regarding the application for Use by Special Review(USR) Permit#1629 was
held on January 15, 2008, and the application is requesting the placement of a transmission facility. He
clarified the application was not considered pursuant to 1041 Regulations, therefore, the matter does not
come before the Board of County Commissioners. He further clarified the application was considered as
a Major Facility of a Public Utility, which the Planning Commission has complete review of, and the
Planning Commission voted to deny the permit. He indicated United Power, Inc., the applicant, has the
right to appeal the decision of any lesser commission or board to the Board of County Commissioners,
pursuant to Section 2-4-10 of the Weld County Code. He stated Exhibit A includes a copy of the reference
for Section 2-4-10. Mr. Barker stated a hearing schedule was set up on March 24, 2008, in order to
consider the appeal of United Power. He clarified a copy of the transcript from the Planning Commission
meeting has been ordered, for the Board to review, and to certify the record for the appellant and those
wishing to protest the appeal. He stated the original hearing date was set for April 23, 2008; however, the
processing of the transcript has taken longer than expected, and it will not be completed until April 25,
2008. He further stated after discussions with the affected parties, a modified schedule was created, and
the hearing date of April 23, 2008 shall be vacated and rescheduled for May 14, 2008. He stated United
Power will provide a brief, then any interested parties may provide a response to the brief, and United
Power will reply to the responses, if the company chooses to do so.
Mr. Barker stated questions have been raised regarding the criteria for review, and the third page of
Exhibit A does not provide a standard of review, therefore, there has been debate between the parties
regarding the standard for review. He recommended the appeal brought before the Board be treated in
the same manner as a Rule 106 Hearing, similar to land use hearings denied by the Board which may be
appealed to the District Court. He indicated the Board must consider whether the Planning Commission
has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion in denying the permit for USR#1629. He stated Mark
Meyer, representing United Power, provided an e-mail, contained within Exhibit A, which included the
suggested language for the appeal criteria to be incorporated into the Resolution, which he reviewed for
the record. Mr. Barker summarized the Board may consider the appeal through the Rule 106 Hearing,
determining whether the Planning Commission exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, or, as
suggested by United Power, that the Planning Commission met its burden of proof contained with the
previous section references. He stated he reviewed the Weld County Code to determine other instances
of appeals, and two types of appeals were found, including a Grievance Hearing for employee discipline,
as detailed in Chapter 3, and the appeal of Road Impact Fees, as detailed in Chapter 20. He clarified the
Board is the appellate body for grievance procedures, which is similar to the standards for Rule 106
Hearings. He further clarified the appeal process within Chapter 20 details the appeal of the decision
made by the Director of the Department of Public Works, and the Board must make written findings of fact
and conclusions of law, according to the same standards of the decision maker.
Minutes, April 21, 2008 2008-1169
Page 6 BC0016
Mr. Barker indicated his belief is that this type of appeal shall be handled similar to a grievance hearing,
since the decision was made by a lesser Commission, and public testimony was considered, which is
different than the situation for an appeal of a Road Impact Fee. He clarified grievance hearings do not
require a public hearing; however,the appeal does come before a board appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners to make a decision. He indicated it is more appropriate to determine if the Planning
Commission exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. He stated he received an e-mail from
Cynthia Treadwell, marked Exhibit B, which contained a suggested modification to the Resolution
language; however, he recommended that the language within the Resolution remain as presented.
In response to Chair Pro-Tem Masden, Mr. Barker indicated the Board will not receive additional testimony
or evidence at the hearing;however,the Board will review the previous record of the Planning Commission,
which is similar to a Rule 106 Hearing. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Barker clarified
the Board will only hear oral arguments from the attorney representing United Power, and the attorney
representing the Homeowners'Association of the surrounding property owners,only regarding the decision
made by the Planning Commission. He further clarified additional evidence and testimony will not be
presented within the hearing. Commissioner Garcia clarified that within the hearing now proposed for
May 14, 2008, the Board will not consider each fact as the Planning Commission did at the hearing on
January 15, 2008; rather, the Board will need to determine whether the Planning Commission was clearly
wrong in the decision, or if the Planning Commission exceeded its jurisdiction. He clarified the Board will
not be in a position to second-guess the facts; however, the Board will need to second-guess the action
of the Planning Commission. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Commissioner Garcia indicated
the Board will either affirm the decision of the Planning Commission,or remand the decision,which means
the matter will be sent back to the Planning Commission with directions to correct certain mistakes.
Further responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Barker indicated if the permit is denied again by
the Planning Commission, after the remand, the denial will stand. He clarified State statute allows for the
process of an appeal to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), therefore, United Power may enact their
right to initiate an appeal to the PUC. In response to Chair Pro-Tem Masden, Mr. Barker confirmed that
if the Board approves the appeal, the matter will be sent back to the Planning Commission with written
directions for further testimony and considerations. No public testimony was provided regarding the
matter. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Barker recommended the Board approve the
Resolution setting the hearing date and briefing schedule, as presented, without the modifications
suggested by the e-mails submitted by Mr. Meyer or Ms. Treadwell. Commissioner Rademacher moved
to approve the Resolution to set an amended hearing date and briefing schedule, and to establish the
criteria for the appeal of Use by Special Review Permit#1629. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the
motion carried unanimously.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE#2008-2, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING,
WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 29 BUILDING REGULATIONS, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE:
Commissioner Rademacher moved to read said Ordinance by title only. Seconded by Commissioner
Garcia,the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Barker read said title into the record. Roger Vigil, Department
of Building Inspection, stated one modification was made within Section 29-3-70, as a result of the
discussion within the most recent work session. He indicated the first sentence of Section 29-3-70.B.3
shall state,"Mechanical systems and equipment serving the building, heating, cooling, or ventilation needs
shall comply with Section 403 of the International Energy Conservation Code, except sizing as required
by Section 403.6." He clarified no other changes have been proposed after the approval of the first
reading. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the second reading of Ordinance#2008-2. Seconded
by Commissioner Rademacher, the motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the consent
agenda. Ordinance#2008-2 was approved on second reading.
Minutes, April 21, 2008 2008-1169
Page 7 BC0016
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 10:10 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Medit4
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: �••� EXCUSED
♦ .am
H. Jerke, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board
1161 4" bert D. asden, Pro-Tem
BY: t` aft
DepClerk ti the Board
ifAIrt ' II m F. Garcia
\\Daavid E. Long
ougl Radema cer
Minutes, April 21, 2008 2008-1169
Page 8 BC0016
:c:. . .. r':i:ctai'+L Di::,;:._r ._.__._ __...�.. t .:. :r ..u. �...___.�.
t.\ .:
s iec'. i iutran S"%ices C'•r.;r-i.iii.
I)
F. i. F) .1: ..• _e •t. Fl:• LF. eat : . C ,� .i. n..�.l e+ t ':net., .,i. n1,,i.•sn! t,.. t :i ..)
•ln ar .:1;t times J o s ,'l; n. l may ;i t with 1.....`. ..a.••
rt'. rl:,:. . there ittz_tti st.. . f.•rc:tr: i _. �i�lu:t: n�. ;:�,rc;. vF •1 ,��• certain 4ittiittic,t>s were tt?r!d:c•,.i.
the foll 1 ..Lii. t, !reel`: ;lC:•+<'[.:pe•.i
Procedure:
An individual wanting to file a complain: may do so by informing a start member of the Weld County Division of
Human Services who will then:
1. Try to resolve the individual's complaint.
�. If a staff member is unable to resolve the issue, the complainant is to be referred to the appropriate agency
Program Director who will try to resolve the complaint.
3. If the Program Director is unable to resolve the issue, the complainant is to be referred to the Executive
Director or Complaint Specialist of the Division of Human Services.
4. If the complainant is not satisfied with the resolution, a complaint can be filed with the Board of Count
Commissioners.
For individuals who are participants in a program operated by the Division,there are specific grievance procedures:.
complaint processes in place for resolving complaints. Please refer to those processes when tiling a complaint.
Susan Talmadge,Office Mditager
•
+ < ^sue ,'•is •
.. •
2006 \\*eh] 'l-ransl)ol-tation Report
11t '1:1\ SI 1tv ICI::S -T1'L- NSI'Ol:TAT1O` `tATIsTIcS
2006 Trip Purpose
n
0 '-.;t?lam.
I
i
•
TRIP PURPOSE ANNUAL#OF rRii` _._.__.-..._PERCENT OF TOTAL
: Medical R 41/
•
Nutrition 2,61
11�1Ui J'i�.+:.tl 2.
Social"R:crcati.m 301 .40%
Elder Daffy Care 931__ _ 9;1 ;. _.
! Other •
. I t76 ,bo
Total _— �._ 70.054 ; _—__ I i FO.t)+1"o
2006 Passenger Trips
-
l�r" n
is
.~ � t3 Disable° <60
e7 Cisabted<60
O 6derly/tiicn Cts abted
O Other
L_
.TPASSENGER TRIPS I ANNUAL#OF TRIPS ----I-PERCENT PERCENT OF TOTAL. -'
RI
Disabted>60 ---.___._�_
i i..,.9, :7,n 17.Gt5"/o
i Disabled<60 i 1,106 _ 1.45%
Elderly Non-Di bled 1.310 ___ 2.39?.'' ___
Other _ o0.156 79.100
Total One 4�av Trips 76,1}S s —` __ .._.____. t0(i.C�i°o__. i
1
I'1_ \l)1NC; Stet RUES
• Transportation Funding Sources
i
i
f___".- 0,FM.
I �� c
.:-Fiz.':4 ...:„ - - , ........ .
0 jBG
_Hr....,
'-^Y i3f.
.-I; . •2 M cic—ftmaistaimi „ILL Jiitg.----
a!d T≥acs:,,r.' -t
_ _ .. ,
i________
_____
.________________ ___._ _ .
r.E. ; - _IN)ti >t, L\RS , PERCENT OF TIT.\1
Eli C Y,.)::-3ted: :j 561.10: ! 1 -1,
'.l.::ii_z 1 `.Ieciicai Iranspottauon •
5t! , 0.1:,0, ,
Con::::Lte_i Services — — I $57:5,1"r9 :.4.69'
Iota' ____..._._. t $1,00,(9S t 100.!;jt",, •
MINI-BUS
The Weld County Mini-bus system is demand response and modified demand response
(term used to describe regular routes to rural towns which are built around a cail-m
system to a local contact person)open 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year.
Approximately 80% if the annual trips are for medical purposes.
We require all clients call two working days in advance of a necessary ride, if the ride is
in our Ueneral service area. If the client has a high milea�_e trip, that request must he
made no less then three working days in advance of the appointment. The initial call
from the client (or designee) will give information necessary to database the ride. Name.
address, date of birth, Social Security number or current Medicaid number, address of the
destination, appointment times, escort service needed and the need for special equipment,
such as wheelchair, scooter. blind services, service animals or special disabled services
arc needed will be listed at that time.
2
:- NI1`I.141 ; ••• IAIISFFI(: S
2006 iv'Ini-Bus Passenger Trips
.e- :yi�:,ii `"•i74:171`4 -'''' 0 CIsc:led : 60
Y= ?«iM+CE-P{ci.'�L3". .a-.'sa � cte ri.. �,
i
i
P:\SSENCER I .; -
R. PERCENT OF 1.0 .!L.
Gisahiul<':a} - L I��r;_. . a�)ha—_...._._......_.-
.
` Elderly iNon-D:,ah' ' _ ___. 11.42';, _._..__.._-._._.
e,. l.sii
;• Total u_ t V a•:•Mull-Bus i ri••s ; . I,..y��S.. ;a:4,i.:- .. ...._.._.._.._._ .
:MINI-BUS FUNDING SOI.;RC'ES
2006 MINI-BUS FUNDING SOURCES
1.,,,c.:;•:4,..,,,,.., ! i CSEG
--..... ,G F;CES-N cn Medical
I 0 Medicaid Medical ,I
Transportation
i FLNDrN0 SOURCE ' _006 DOLLARS E'E:RC' NT OF F TOTAL
i�:a tl�r�.u�li CD(YI $243,4 0 .._ ... 49.b -- .._-
I Community Service B:rck Grant Sla5.$6d _ 37.90 •;,
IICBS`;on-Medical
561,105 i 12.dn':_-,�
MIedica:J Medical,Transportation _ ' So 0.0o"•
i Total Mini-Btu Funding I $490,419 100.00.N .•
3
July 31, 2007
Re: Division of Human Resources Policy Number ED-001
Dear Commissioner Garcia:
Thank you for a copy of the above cited Policy and Procedure
ED-001 (enclosed).
The Weld Advocacy Network on ,Disabi,r�aes (WAND) did not receive a copy of ED-
001 until after our May, 2007 meeting. We did review this policy and cr.sccd .-- at
our June meeting and have a number of questions and concerns we would like
addressed. We had asked at our forum for copy of the county's 'appeal process'
when issues occur with citizens, specifically related to Medicaid transportation
services offered by Weld County. What we received appears to be a complaint
policy and procedure ED-001, not an appeal policy nor appeal procedure. Is ED-
001 a grievance or an appeal procedure?
We find ED-001 vague and unclear. It seems to say that one can go to any staff
person in the department and file a complaint Is that correct or is there one
specified person that one initiates a complaint with? Is this the complaint
procedure used by employees as well as the public having a problem with a
particular department?
We are concerned with transportation services by the county for people with
Medicaid. The user friendliness of this document we call into question. There are
no names, telephone, or other contact information available to initiate a complaint.
Who is and how does one reach the `Complaint Specialist? What is equally
troublesome is that there is no mention of a paper trail or form to fill out nor are
timelines listed for the customer to expect a response within a reasonable
timefame of their complaint Do you have a specific form that is uniformly used by
complainants to register their complaint/s? Are complaints only accepted verbally
or in writing? If in writing, do you have a form that is consistently and uniformly
required to file a written complaint by all citizens who, for instance, have a
complaint with transportation services? If so, how does the public access it There
is no idea as to the timef ame when the county will respond to the complaint at
each step of the procedure. What reasonable timeframes can a citizen expect to
hear back from the Department at each phase of the process if a satisfactory
outcome is not reached between the complainant and the stafr/Program
Director/Executive Director/Complaint Specialist or the Commissioners?
This procedure lacks a date, when was it adopted? Have all staff been duly notified
of this procedure and are they making the public aware of this procedure at the
time a complaint is filed? Do policies relating to Medicaid services need to be
approved by the Commissioners or only with the written concurrence of the Unit
Director? Mr. Speckman mentioned at our public forum that you also attended,
that if a complaint is not resolved by his supervisees, that it would be forwarded to
him for his final review of the matter. The steps in the procedure make no mention
of the Unit Director's role in this procedure and Mr. Speckman initialed this _ . ..
w •
Ira k
a
procedure under the title 'Unit Director. ' Upon receipt of this procedure, no one in the
WAND had been told of this complaint process mentioned in ED-001 when they voiced
concern of a problem with county transportation services. Have other members of the
community receiving transportation services been notified either verbally or in writing
that this procedure is available? If so, when did this occur?
The last two sentences of ED-001 states that 'For individuals who are participants in a
program operated by the Division, there are specific grievance procedures/complaint
processes in place for resolving complaints. Please refer to those processes when filing a
complaint. 'We presume that transportation services provided to persons with Medicaid
is a program'you operate. If that is true, could we receive a copy of those `specific
grievance procedures'? Could you then clarify the purpose of ED-001? As users of
transportations services, we are unclear as to which procedure we are to follow.
Lastly, we view an'appeal'as a constitutional right that follows due process if it involves
government benefits, in this case, Medicaid transportation services. An appeal
procedure (due process procedure') is what we requested of you at our public forum
and you said you would provide us with. As you may be aware, the US Supreme Court
has declared public welfare benefits to be akin to a property right. The US Constitution
says that the government cannot take away the property of a citizen without due process
of law. Due process of law means that before taking away the government must give a
notice outlining the action they are going to take, the date of the action, the reason/s, the
regulations or law supporting their proposed action and any appeal rights. Courts have
also declared that notice must also be given on each occasion when one requests a
benefit and is denied. Medicaid is a full entitlement program and all Medicaid services
must follow these requirements. This applies to medical transportation for everyone on
Medicaid and non-medical for clients on HCBS.
There is one person who is on HCBS who was recently denied non-medical services for
transportation. Transportation staff informed this person that the purpose of the trip was
non-medical and therefore not needed. The staff person further explained that the county
does not get paid for that kind of service. If the individual wanted to attend that
particular activity, they would need to find their own transportation to and from the event
henceforth. At the same County forum, there was no mention of a `grievance'or `appeal
process'this individual was informed about. No forms to submit. No written response
was received by this person as per due process.
This is but one example of why we feel it critical that we receive a copy of the County's
appeal procedure and that our aforementioned concerns and questions about ED-001 be
addressed and answered We are requesting that you respond to
2
•
these concerns and deliver the County's Medicaid transportation appeal process and
procedure to us by Wednesday, August 17, 2007. This information can be sent to
Don Coloroso and Sherri Kasper, Co-Chair of the Weld Advocacy Network on
Disabilities, c/o Connections for Independent Living, 1024 9`h Avenue, Greeley, CO,
80631.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this serious matter.
Sint rely:
Shi rr i Kasper. Co-Chair Weld Advocacy nI7s.. nn nical, c.
Don Coloroso, Co-Chair, Weld Advocacy Network on Disabilities
3
6
OFFICE OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
411k1:11 jilt .
PHONE: 970-336-7204
FAX: 970-352-0242
915 I0TH STREET
P.O. BOX 758
c
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
1:I Ili
COLORADO
August 14. 2007
Don Coloroso
Sherri Kasper
1024 9th Avenue
Greeley Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Coloroso and Ms. Kasper:
In response to your letter of July 31,2007,I must first establish or clarify how the complaint/
grievance system works in relation to the programs Weld County operates.
Different resources drive different complaint/grievance processes. HCBS non-medical
transportation is authorized through the Single Entry Point Program in the Area Agency on
Aging at Human Services,while the Medicaid Transportation authorizations are through the
Department of Social Services. Finally,there are the Human Services Complaint Procedures.
This ties the clients to the appropriate funding source if they wish to make a complaint.
Your letter makes this point exactly. When a HCBS client is asking a transportation staff
member for HCBS non-medical transportation, the question should go to the HCBS Case
Manager who would determine if the request can be met and funded. Thus,if a grievance
procedure is needed, it would start with the HCBS case manager.
Now, as to the Medicaid/HCBS medical transportation Grievance Procedures, these are
Federal/State deterined procedures,so changes must be addressed to them. However,the
Human Services Complaint Procedures is a County determined document. As such,we are
happy to hear your recommendations.
Our goal with the Human Services Process was to make it simple and easy for clients. A
client can complain verbally or in writing to any staff member in the Department. This can,
if not resolved, be appealed to their supervisor, program director, executive director, or
complaint specialist,then ultimately to the Commissioners. The only limitation is when State
or Federal Grievance Procedures for specific programs supersede.
I hope this helps to clarify our Grievance/Complaint processes.
S,incerel �
i 141
William F. Garcia
County Commissioner At-Large
cc: Walt Speckman
Walt Speckmar
From:
,,.
To: LVa: ScecRrrar.
Attachments: DEPARTMENT OP He3f;h Care Pc:ic. r.m CEPA.RTN1E'.T Heait Care Pcdcv arc
Firanc,rc. tm, DEPARTMENT OF Heaith Care Pci,cv and Finarcirci.ntm
ti r . l \•IEL1 r(-- r "j ) + \.-`Fr-)T? l.t TiO'1-,- t) a CIE Cr-
5.014 NO\ MEDICAL TR.A.NSP0RJ ATIO
S.t..)11. 1 The Dep i:7:ie:t? shall as5u:e tTa:iSpcziatio:t to and trom t1ier.I:al1;; t:e��r51''.a'
{
c �.a'e'v' the Cc c1 clo �1edi�.. Assi to ce fc.
hive' ::'� ,.±er :r.ta s C: '•^•..5,:1,....rion. Payment ,�•:'1 be t':?tee for the lens-7
.. b.. .. .... .•a.:::�.Val• ... � •a�.i.� • v a a ♦.� .
..:cans ..s irab e to the cl:en' s condition. The distance to be ti'a v e1e!
t:';i:?.iLvc. t ion r:'eari..er ::3cli:'!cs �'+'. ' ' , r"' i �:l:l:l:�1= it:... t::= physical CoCI:tG:..O:. .?:'...
;:elthre of the client shall all determine the t ce J= r'a:? :3oriar:On
au:17.rjz ei:.
F s
i it+
's
- /1QP nn
WAND
WELD ADVOCACY NETWORK ON DISABILITIES
April 16, 2008
Weld County Commissioners
Dear Sir or Madam:
We from the WAND are presenting the Weld County Commissioners with a simple demand. The current
grievance process for users of the Weld County Transportation system is not adequate to resolve real issues
that occur in this system. There needs to be a formal grievance process specifically for the transportation
system that ensures efficient and mutually agreed upon results. This request has been made both formally and
informally to the Weld County Commissioners multiple times with no results.
The request that we are making includes the following:
• The grievance process is specific to the Weld County Transportation system
• The process is easy to understand and follow for the users
• The process is distributed,in written form, to all users of the Weld County Transportation system
• The process includes specific forms for users to fill out and turn in to a Weld County'Transportation
employee who is trained in the grievance process (this ensures proper documentation is recorded and
retained)
• An adequate and appropriate timeline for follow up is documented within the process to ensure
matters are resolved in a timely manner
• The process clearly describes steps to be taken if the initial grievance is not addressed adequately
Since elyr /;
Since
kG %. CAI d-(/t' r
anY
Members of the Weld Advocacy Network on
Disabilities and its supporters
0, . s l
4mtl. tY
l R,p� .uCda :4' Ad
hn.-i o C� 'r V ^
f
qg
1
lx
L
0
-.
H
al
Z •d
rr
A
R R
V,< U N
xx' > •
O
'C C
Q 0
m
EXHIBIT
I r
Pubtic,T puf LNalItt
ci
o c c
— ▪ o o p W e
r c � .
▪ CJcu P O p.
V a O r G-r n Q (N t. 2 p e-,
r- c I U C
_ t CA: Li--, 0_,
C+.
C v w w n V r u C
•,. a.i co CO N� A U� C , -,,..-cam J: 'O O - W O -. , u
•-•••\
(� H O >. 'C U .? U r`,' •v v r O re Lod c`,I Le) -t r
y .� •- U v ¢ U u i p r co M c l
GJ bA - An C Ci > O �e . I ..
G O G M p O C./ Cl C\ r- Q
(� y s. L." ci y C `' :� v '-.J, r p ''' cc cet en
cc N r r
O '-' O a C rsH (` .O v C 'p "' p C `n v `� c^i v o r y
L'. H H = .0 C „ co 7 N L 03 CO C irp
t
.< 3 H Z °' o c '� 2 U Cr) 0 0 �O
W U H CI W 7 O• 'd V U O N C C T"O E a) c J N a
> a H c, H Z W � c v p w E a � a� � � N c o v -0 n
WW O c co c T
O x 0 H 0 � .T. n N Ct CD Don --
o vD o O u>i .N E -Uo c , a)
W H C� VD Q p w '0 0 '- O O , as ' '0 .- o> a`> o o c w s
ccC� U x CO o � Zy ca o > -p - s —co c E .�
):. O < Wx W 0 -Ca) OQa3coT-coo mo > 35EcQ
� Caaa Z � > OL m ' oaa)iH > Uwcoocpa _0 -oc � nu) CD ..
H Z pa H Q Z o ai r aa) a) c -0 a _0 C m U OO c 0 0 '
Q W C7 �; H W Q n3 L H Np c c O N -O c >, o a> c
z x O - x O Z E N " > .(7) (138a3 o a) a� <o -. U 3 N c
O H O Z O H H H Q kr E o a) cn ( ..) c -o vi c L U cn o c o
o
Q ° mo Et>-. > -oaci �� u) OCc = _ -Uc
. r a) . CD a> > QE E a) .„a) a> N o o �n .2 O E o 'oa
H a'000 w oO 0W c o U o N > QO co -oo
>, r: 0 CU
o a -d >, H
3 ° ej " N o o •Y 3 ct ,c. C U 0 `W
cs o w m o Ca >, .p ct o CD >I H o O
O o —C �° o �, c, O ,o C U . . H p ;X o H O
o Pi 7 ,- z a ,11 0 E 4 b Z W W O Q °° Wj U U
0 Uj ' o C n ton Z .-. o `L) o O U U `A
m .≥ >, �s ` $ a > = '� o d c 0- ' N Z w Fes- n: ccn
�;. b m o. o r o•, o 3 td o .. d ,.. O L:7 x o ' '
E, o b r z r.-71 •o o 0 y G >, 0 = C7 U Zj H ° F
ti a r o o H .-. _ a o o •
G C '-a,.-O Z z O O W d _
° o o P >.^ O - ? P c` C .3 j, ..1--' W 0 W U p
7 c o o o O - C'
c o Q y ocn ❑ i p � ' W d
Pb : w >, aU o C V, o ❑ a O ¢ ZU
.-, ti, .�' CA o o -o v ro Z o E ... o o W O 3 a H O d H
'O atO > > o 2, O- > C •r E ,.., 0 s,
E'+ 3 .- oi
Fs .� Et -o cc• P '«. H c, O H
Q m v_
F—i N r c w n °� a,
L W y
O^Q fi r 7 r r Q (6 o N y o aC T
Z O u .� .� 7 � -,--.
N 4....
TS ccoo O 0 O
r" y ri v. 4-1
o c ca a) p m 13 aj c,
u J L D U E v) > 75 > O >, a. iO2.
�T u o c c co w`oa m c ca
T Z L O
J J .N 7 Z .U C �'"' Z O 41-1 O (Nn i-'
OJ E ~ Y Q y 3 Cl: y T
v J o 2 o o c > L 2 a, y ca E Ls=
H ° (� U > u 5 H U o co o a H as as ° U
Hello