The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20081665.tiff Esther Gesick rom: Debbie Leebove [dleebove@fostergraham.com] nt: Friday, June 06, 2008 3:08 PM o: Esther Gesick Cc: David Foster; Cynthia M. Treadwell; Dan Calisher; Impurdy@centexhomes.com Subject: Letter to Weld Cty BOCC requesting new hearing date Attachments: BOCC Letter Requesting New Hearing Date_6-6-08.pdf PM BOCC Letter equesting New Hea. Esther, Please forward the attached letter to Mr. Jerke from David Foster. We appreciate your help in forwarding the letter to Mr. Barker, Mr. Clark and Mr. Meyer as well. Thank you very much, ebbie Leebove xecutive Assistant to David Wm. Foster Foster Graham Milstein Miller & Calisher, LLP 621 17th Street, 19th Floor, Denver, CO 80293 Firm: 303-333-9810 Direct: 303-962-7082 Fax: 303-333-9786, www.fostergraham.com EXHIBIT • 1 2008-1665 • FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEIN MILLER CALISHER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 21.? _.-. I A n: June 6, 2008 Mr. Bill Jerke, BOCC Chairman VIA E-MAIL TRANSMISSION Weld County Colorado AND FIRST CLASS MAIL 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80642 Re: Applicant— United Power Case No. USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Dear Chairman Jerke: • Upon returning to my office from the hearing on Wednesday June 4th, we identified two scheduling conflicts with the June 25th hearing. First, I did not have the opportunity to vet this date and time with two of my law partners who will be handling a large portion of the hearing. Neither of them is available on the 25`h as they will both he out of town. Second, in listening to the important arguments the entire BOCC articulated in determining that a de novo hearing was appropriate, many of the people you want to hear from will have work related conflicts with any hearing scheduled for 9:00 a.m. We ask you to please consider scheduling an evening hearing for this matter, or at the very least, an afternoon hearing. Again, please know that my client is grateful for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEI MILLER&CALISHER, LLP David Wm. Foster cc: Mr. Bruce T. Barker, County Attorney • Mr. Richard K. Clark, Mr. Mark A. Meyer 621 SEVENTEENTH STREET • 19TH FLOOR • DENVER, COLORADO 80293 303 333 9810 PHONE • 303 333 9786 FAX WWW.FOSTERGRAHAM.COM ttC11(t CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE (970)336-7215, EXT.4218 • FAX: (9 42 P.O.OOX 7. BOX 758 IGREELEY, COLORADO 80632 C. COLORADO STATE OF COLORADO) ss COUNTY OF WELD ) I, Esther E. Gesick, Deputy Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Weld, State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the attached binder and contents is a duplicate of the original record for Use by Special Review Permit#1629 on file in the Weld County Clerk to the Board's office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County at Greeley, Colorado, this 12th day of June, 2008. • atehild EL CLERK TO THE BOARD S f1861O 4V .rq BY: r- DEPUTY CLERK TO THE • • EXHIBIT Iw Iice —got Esther Gesick o Esther Gesick nt: Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:13 PM o: 'Debbie Leebove' Cc: 'TRANSCIBER-WILSON GEORGE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (wgcr@sprynet.com)'; Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick Subject: RE: Official Transcriber Requested... Debbie, I have contacted Wilson George Court Reporters, Inc. ("WGCR") , located in Fort Collins, Colorado. They have tentatively scheduled a court reporter to be in attendance for the hearing date of July 16, 2008, which I can reschedule, if necessary. Their general rates are as follows: Court Reporter (at hearing) Appearance fee = $35.00 per hour $6.35 per page (provide certified original, one copy, and 1 digital copy) Average 40 pages per hour Generally requires 2-3 weeks to complete • Regarding your request for a transcript of the June 4, 2008, hearing, and certified copy of the file, I would require a deposit based on the following: 6/4/08 hearing length - 1.5 hrs $6.50 - $7.50 per page (WGCR will determine exact page rate based on difficulty/quality of the recording provided) Approx. 60 pages per hour 90 pages X $7.50 per hour = Total Deposit Due: $675.00 (1 certified original, 1 hard copy, and 1 digital copy) I have also completed and mailed the copy of the entire case file, minus one important piece of paper - the signed certification! I forgot to insert it into the binder before it was packaged up, so I am sending it in a separate envelope which you can insert into the front of the file. Also, I am working to complete the Minutes and Resolutions for the hearings on May 21, and June 4, and I will forward copies once they are available - Sorry for the delay. Staff Time - $20.00 X 1.5 hrs = $30.00 illk25 per page X 659 pages = $164 .75 Binder + shipping = $9.35 1 Total Due: $204 .10 •rand Total: $879.10 Please make check payable to "Weld County Clerk to the Board." A copy of the digital recording went out in today' s mail, and the transcriptionist estimates the project to be completed and delivered in approximately two weeks. Upon billing by WGCR, Weld County will bill FGMC the balance, or refund the difference, and forward the package to FGMC once payment is received. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks! Esther E. Gesick (Deputy Clerk to the Board 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 356-4000 X4226 (970) 352-0242 (fax) Original Message From: Debbie Leebove [mailto:dleebove@fostergraham.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12:49 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Official Transcriber Requested. . . Esther, The partners at FGMC request a court reporter be present to transcribe the upcoming hearing (date TED) in its entirety. • 2 Thank you, • Debbie Leebove Executive Assistant to David Wm. Foster Foster Graham Milstein Miller & Calisher, LLP 621 17th Street, 19th Floor, Denver, CO 80293 •rm: 303-333-9810 Direct: 303-962-7082 Fax: 303-333-9786, www.fostergraham.com • 3 va • IL CI • FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEIN MILLER CALISHER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4 ire . ok-X*---i tr.-An • . • 621 SEVENTEENTH STREET • 19TH FLOOR • DENVER, COLORADO 80293 303 333 9810 PHONE • 303 333 9786 FAX WWW.FOSTERGRAHAM.COM • CO C 8 0 0 a of of CO m no' l CO 6 o of cn s ri z Or O o Z » I-- o O J m d o U J 1 Q O • O a H a Z> w m N d `° 3 DO S Y in a o r W O N , �I U8 U W W J a Z _ (n J _ O> r0 Li. a W �� C f Q� Q. a c Ce `3W O O <a 85 a{ p C a W K U o W Z£908 00 'dalaaa0 CD o in 891 X08 '0 •d g w z o 0 V09 3H1 01 Y x310 en o 500V80100 A1Nnoo 013M : : i:le 0 0 W O LL or • / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING • CERTIFICATE THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS June 15, 2008 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT Pi ACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE 'DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY I, , HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT Ti- L SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE BOARS )F COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR USR-1629 IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTriiCT. Michelle Martin Name of Person Posting Sign 7 • Signature of Person Postir_' sign STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me tt , /Hi day of J w r 1-<- , 2008. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Y�PUADd�! •••!.° � Notary Public DEBRA y� BRDDHE My Commission Expires: a F •41/4 • EXHIBIT x use -Ko2" ...• . e ' • 1‘4.•iii;lib..-Ill,• . , -IL• j.V. al rag\ 1 I it• 1. \� � , , fie,le ' . Y��! F•• • it. ^'s: P� et` '`ate • N�`1 .''__ S _ j„ 1-4-, . '• ti - 'k• .. -....• i , an)_r_ .:7 .• ‘..•� . .. •— .. I S aflakier ti ` •� � mss` .:":1---4-0,.. „S w_ r •{Jf��: -.W f. � i. .' . �A. -is ..F-_ _ . y� , .s' `. .i- ' r a ha1. . • Y ,_ 1t' { ._- _. -•� t¢•:w!►�'t!1_.� •{ .:•mot .. J' `., • - .'' i: a �� Q �=�1 ' see '"�" ..t.-": y �. .... c cx„�y r It `'r`�, `mot '�- - `- ^- , - �� v fY' •`. �•'?�,.r-� ` - �,vy♦ e.ti , 1., t ` . .. '�•if' r or •rt.— .. •4-r •►r• Y;_ �z 1.�>f�^+thy'~« r a :� .w ;.; - • •as ' _ rY• • +t, _ "•! -r. ,,` .a 'w`._!� .�'♦�9y • { 6.,' '!�, �. �!, V , ,► .r - ti� • Ali:v ! •r jet +`.C t� " �-Ir'%'/� „/ • • ' •4 7 1 �.,• , `` R Vd�".ry''i i . p 1 .•7 ---• 111. .• ' • �- \ r . ;T& r ,� r,-/-41p1,1 . -41 . , `.• ar • �r1 f • r - '1 :: : r 1, , `- A"I. y ' .tr/ • '✓ • •• • " ; •r ir• WO . 1 ` � + . �w•� 4. t •p rii, i .' �`' /i � J�� q k a�� "� I t • -- y� -NSF" �. . �.N.....N..-----°N-. -i. e•N. . Cal 1 itec5lb it I IM •• 4%4st.- . 'LC •• ." 4 d. ' r 1, . . , -. f.,4 Sati =O.—• aat ,i/ 'a *WC C :5- 4 t ., mor ., : '''''• i, .,) • /, . ! 4.<414;17114 , -I O a 1..::\:b11:\ C,) eiC iota iv et ai W lc. Ca amma I Q Watt t4 Ila ° ibiu N.1 Cel to late C.3 CZ r at Laml .,g() \ CC \\-) sal\ 5' I Liu lett 0 CD Ca Ca, IIU WILI °Mal .S‘• %el i k....it.dosaital ...CI: 1.4 V.' is\\••Sl it ale al CZ' Nall' CA Ct. N �, " Q Q ' st i �.. a Us) U co � W � o OCIIIIIIII Mt MIS Sat it ,W 0 La6.1 fora Q b L N O Qcz Clo �, UP a law CS uIti "j N d.i z M 4,,, .. , c..) ci- If,)--' C- 4: ,(1 . .. .., _ .. w ,e,. 4 -3 gt „mz ,,,, c ea ctskr u o o �� • N r @In° = a. F— o IJ 0 ��'� � CI, z ,. .,_ x a � W W a a 4.3)r 00 iii ° „" �► tW W Ica all 8 Q z Cr W Cr f � 1•" o z Cr v .X. filet.:' ''•'".,%Or -4 • {l .� ,. • • t'$ c*t !>\ ' • . - C ♦". ' - r- IIL--}UU _ -=, yr • �` �, .""41144‘,„H_ 1 44 V `, ` �A 1 yy , • , . `•1 � �, r , .� -iIlea O,! a 'i. I '. - ♦ l/i r1 �'• `l ' J _.T� \�a` _ _� I �, _ .. -I TO A - f r i { •,► ({ ;' .fly+r •. _ •. •� ' ''�- oft ,� r r • !. .• t+� A. • 1 I,•111 ••fie --1•. r` i -- �S •O II j, t ukt - 4 1)4 , ! jr ... , , . . M. • • •< �z- aJ»� �. 'a%'aj�4` � r,.,, / "a �" . , ,r, ��t, /`_ a .`� _ 1:f- ' ` r, 1!"'�/+•-� ` r� , -• f.. -- `^.r�• �" �. •fir •J� +dy�•� '�''2c. ./ _ tiff ' `Y, /, • .i � ,•• -� : , , ` •••••-•..----"7;-.7_ ....e-,:::.. ..- "- '' A� / { �,',� I'+�,._,y7� Tom. 1• �" •- — li• ��=''J'p+• • - _ , _ , �- • , 1 ----- -- 71 �>, • 4s ., ., L .. t,+. . •,- 1../ .a• •✓.�� - . -7l .!� _mss I /. • 1 • r Ai 1.:•••-•:.4%.* il,•% �_♦ • Ii�.} h3�"fY- + ._ t / ',I .. / .. - , __ -- r -7.0,0e5.3-.....7 .mss, a 're, Jj}•'/ - w i: .� ? - y.i ,, 7. •-•tt—:\ _ , , ' f•r, 1.. / _ `11_ .tN ' - _ t..• �. .l i ft�Il./ / • �� I ' �� r'?G; 1 -t, yt� , .f�. �M, �r �, f. ♦ 11 k•� '� Y /,r tt t.� r?. '�'-' ,�. .i r',:J„'1 "41F� '. • i • '.. 1, r h'R77 •, q + • • • •.,<• • el ` t Yom- ' �: _ � { .w4. � -ir• l- �. .• k P•A•• -� A ' J`;• •.-yR ,` • IL-'- -,tr �•J'eer '�.••� /• ti //y �� _ •. .a` Z. 1 • `� f /.- t '- '`L7j/i.�� :'..,\ .. ' „i • I� �, a • . ., -/_ 4it‘..; 7 I - ,� - , I - •./r+' 1.•`,%, < --.1-1. 141r.IT i{ �1 T. +ts�. -% IdJ ibec• ' •'+yy �4 •�„� �t 5) , ,t ` �,l - ." 'tt . ,, • •.... J. !�-' iF •Y ` r y� 'Ss` ' L ' _sitis-n4.aatit. , ..i.rot,,,‘ _ ;I.', ‘'.: ;1/4 1.7. ' ... : / ' ,,. g*"I.: 4041 lc itiltAll i tv. ..1 20,0 ..... ,. . . 1 1.,..-.7- , . . IV • rl 1.' /. 3 •� ..c`r•4 � � r• , • • + I .. - i'% a Jr •I- A 4;/ sri 1• . ` i J- -- ice /' f WaG • ' / • Q a_ k. t . - ',Iviti4 ,.• 1-4., • • • pit lime 1 • 4}` � � Ira�K Z O �1 o Al `46a"a ^� •• • �,_�"�xi-�,� • W II J .('• v W Q d' dri��. rtwl Mf.F' _ \-••` '-:-. , ' • , WW1 = F-- y M ��7[. Ss `:Y. >f..C' t6 r' Ay. " +l"c�6 = t! :. .! 1O 1� Q •{J " O I- W i `�1 1 •}s'".' t- . .Sta /• • �ti;'.� +. Az...., I..= cc c, .4sir ::.,Its ..,, e .ds., ...,,, rr tea i 0 02 ! V... .... -3 26 1.11 U Ca) mail CD 2 rj sr 4- yr I/ /� �'MIS J w c 3 L W W. WI r imili SI JJp 7,, ,r,.!'_ J Y, _1j�' °'j� riga - Q` �i. I- - -^t r ;1 1 ••. ., . - ..' - .- • C 41 0 La 4� •1. .�:if .1.1/41-1 co'� a- 0 MEv a �.•, soul Cr) 7,_ . .: : . 1 lira: \c"..)4.3 .4 :k.-- LAJ 1 ''' Y's. _ Fv� a.. cry W a3 _ S .r w`�'�� ar Q �• �tmay►• - r , a7 r1,� • • � __ilk� 11 , ' , /i' , 1r * • }iYi ' t . a/ / ra - 71: ib , .---....;..../ .....xl.....j..t-i.).f_ _ { . I �► ,� f ir we• g R 11 its . .-",-,,,,,,t, 4� 1' } !•-"" �3a ��•S (�•.. . .� -�r.�, - f. , �, I la_ t :Sliferx $.. \]r_r —_ 4 • '�• , �J, f i It •• •1r•. •'7_�. - • • .�•� •r! •,_• .III `'" '�`Y '. ;.•`` . •4•r 1$R' '�?, • - v .r a y, /210o\.- - ,. •�I�Iy ��.• I, •' • f. • _ .2. r / ";:ill M t1•,�I' a e 1 i •▪ •�• •'t]�l+ w �� -r�. ,"'tr.. •�� ` `t: `y , d + \i`1 / t. .44 `,. y} 4 .... e.' •< I �•� 1<�•-' ' .r , '� '<al• ,,,__ �•r ,/ rj-�`d•• e.- • ,I `.-tom �' ~ f ► 1' . 7 r iI " lc,,`,Pto 1 1 . t - f • } ----47.... - " '6'.'� �• Y.✓ia. ✓, 1 r. . I•e 1r '�` _ , 11r_.,•r'trr�,�f )f.-/ . . t. 2 •� sSeC1j�' d#rr _�X_/• l�.Jr.�r r • 3 .. • ¢ ._ - ' ` s - ' -' _ ;'.a�. .. •' _ ( ,L�Y -Xj/ ope ft"'� y N. . I ,•!�', .' �l�Y •vx. * '.. Yr } tr, ,';fii)1t-l�rF - _. • i •\%.•ti ' 7►1 • ' -� �t,� � r� - ':. lj, - 'r 1 r::if . • / a'• },• 'Jr j e�`y.t-.• - 1j, ',Pi ^ •;d rte;/jl . . r It t ? a . ` j -- rid 141" •i{•� /. �� ' '_ •.I_♦ •%(.,.t •y,i� `_ f t ��f 1 , •- r - #i~1-,AK,• I.- _',., '` • f .. �'•A' y T �M • {, -` � •ry..�'i1 J L '. �" " Y.- :y �j)�•1 1/4 tf=r-. . " rJ I ., ` + : • �� •/!t r ,I�t` t JP • ••• • •-_ ,.,„:„. _ ...re:. _ -.......„..._ ,. ,--,-., 4,....„ .„. • . ..._ :.... , , ../. . . A,or N - A ;" ' elk : t ' .1 N. . .7,0c-- I • R Its . . ', - /\ f '• • - „ r� AL* /'', --; h'c `� !' /'lit. .v . 0.4 . W. \ i1 " - A- \I l 1 I N. , 1 41 It y' , air r�' . lb A ' .'`' • _ • 4 ` •V ' A .. , 4 8 i.rtift . ., '. 6 itic; - :11:14:!.t1 1:1-4(i• iird: . 1 se -t.- .• . . 111 n/' bv , ill: Vs, e �`��////•M,t 1'� i .1 Des t �'y�`'� ( • { .r !I .r I �•• `. S - I •, • ,t , : !'. MIT :V. .' i�'t'l {•1 i`?h `L, I V 4• 4 , 1 . ., . 44•tv . . r it ii•ir t• taint a J • t : ' ` \ v1 V' .y. t,J+�., C 1. °) � .ICI , • '� t J � 114‘ /r,.• . . . • , f. ` f 1,4.,:4, 1 • ,. , ..41.4:neV * : '•y . , . ,, r;lie P i •••• { or, 0, r * - V, I%s, , 4 •t y." :I� t .• � � ' • 3, , •iii ' _' ��• -• �I 1,II I/ I A ,• !L • • 1 A ir' . { r 11111 t• I. 4` - .1. • • . *� P. 1 i t f •tr J • 1; / ye it • `- t • • 1" - I . if f! , ,, 5. ,• . II IIidi' • ( „ 't1 se:: ' i ... - if Is/ • • 1 • A t.., ., .. .... • �» , ,f I , • / 1. ♦ • I i • M I• • i C H 1• —;�s Z Q O j ' t cc O • ,: . 1 . I. l , . v v r T . ) cm IF. ° Z tx' 'a -� Fes' It: r/ W W tc' v Z 1 1 • , . 7' 'c ,�'�} ' • ' v 1� , „...'iv./ la ZW t OEta WM ! • • •, a *.l ••••‘ '•---•• s) •-•_t fit. 1� 0 _� N.• Y C._ • \ I .t a 1+�� x J �,. • '• • i '' 4,1 N 1� t Q ' 1 �t L., t ' , E �., _ 0 a w _ 0. N N M • ' ► :,• t \ W o - �` I . +• 4,1. , Cr o , �, r �' t1a ' H• * 0 W W O a -a. s„43 limo •. S cr j`.• Of WZ _. Un , _ _4 , . • VI I— cti c= gmal Ce) . Z as ...I1 ,' •• ` FNoa = a a a •-, dia Cc o • Ill( I .SI - Ai at, "DPI • 4 • I ' . % i , Si sr ,si. ili . . I • • 1 se 4 • 1 11 -4 ' 1 i •}•7 1 y J a s •4 • . •. il • r I • ? 4r t r • to S I •1I ` n . , • • 7 Iii 4.1. : 4 Al% .„t, . • 1 I it if?, g :1 ., • • I 1 1 • +t � n . �.�1 '� • t '' . ; 1 •••: 1C• j -: : Esther Gesick om: Debbie Leebove [dleebove@fostergraham.com] nt: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:35 AM o: Esther Gesick Cc: David Foster; Cynthia M. Treadwell Subject: FW: United Power- Rescheduling of BOCC Hearing Attachments: FGMMC email logo 2.jpg FGMMC email logo 2.Jpg(10 KB)... Esther, Good morning! This is an email from Cynthia Treadwell which was sent to Mark Meyer this morning. Cynthia asked me to forward it. I will also forward you the email that Cynthia sent to Mark last week regarding the date. It will provide context to this morning' s communication. Thanks so much — •bbie Debbie Leebove Executive Assistant to David Wm. Foster Foster Graham Milstein Miller & Calisher, LLP 621 17th Street, 19th Floor, Denver, CO 80293 Firm: 303-333-9810 Direct: 303-962-7082 Fax: 303-333-9786, www.£ostergraham.com • EXH19R Y US {G.2 1 From: Cynthia M. Treadwell Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:14 AM To: 'mmeyer@rothgerber.com' iIIK: Dan Calisher; David Foster; Debbie Leebove; Tami J. Lawley bject: RE: United Power - Rescheduling of BOCC Hearing I am following up a second time on this scheduling. If we do not hear something from either you or the county by Wed 6/18 about a rescheduled date, we will request that the county set the matter over at a time cleared on our calendar. We do not intend to be rude, however, this needs to be addressed and we will be compelled to move forward in the event we do not receive input from your client. Thank you. Cynthia M. Treadwell Foster Graham Milstein Miller & Calisher LLP 621 Seventeenth St. , 19th Floor Denver, CO 80293 (303)333-9810 (303)333-9786 (fax) •.iw.fostergraham.com cblocked: :http://www.fostergraham.com/> PLEASE NOTE: This email message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately. FEDERAL TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: We are required by U.S. Treasury Regulations to inform you that, to the extent this message includes any federal tax advice, this message is not intended or written by the sender to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. From: Cynthia M. Treadwell Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:22 PM To: 'mmeyer@rothgerber.com' Cc: Dan Calisher; David Foster; Debbie Leebove; Tami J. Lawley Ill bject: United Power - Rescheduling of BOCC Hearing Mr. Meyer: 2 As you are aware, we have requested a rescheduling of the HOCC hearing presently set for June 25, 2008. We have received from the County the following proposed rescheduling dates when the full board and relevant planning staff can attend: • July 16, 2008 10:00 am or 1:30 pm July 23, 2008 10:00 am or 1:30 pm We have notified the County of our availability. We understand these dates and times were also communicated to your firm. Our inquiry with the County today revealed that they have not heard back from you. Please advise. Cynthia M. Treadwell Foster Graham Milstein Miller & Calisher LLP 621 Seventeenth St. , 19th Floor Denver, CO 80293 (303)333-9810 03) 333-9786 (fax) www.fostergraham.com <blocked: :http://www.fostergraham.com/> PLEASE NOTE: This email message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately. FEDERAL TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: We are required by U.S. Treasury Regulations to inform you that, to the extent this message includes any federal tax advice, this message is not intended or written by the sender to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. • 3 Esther Gesick om: Mark Meyer[mmeyer@rothgerber.com] nt: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:47 PM o: Esther Gesick Cc: Bruce Barker; Michelle Martin; David Foster; Debbie Leebove Subject: Re: FW: Letter to Weld Cty BOCC requesting new hearing date Esther: As I discussed by telephone with Bruce Barker yesterday, United Power is in agreement with continuing the case for USR #1629 currently scheduled for June 25, 2008, with a new date of July 16, 2008, provided that the hearing begins at 10:00 a.m. In my discussions with Mr. Barker, he mentioned that the 10:00 a.m. time works well for him and for the Commissioners. He also mentioned, as you did, that there are no other hearings scheduled for that day, and that efforts will be made so that no other hearings will be scheduled for that day. Please let me know if you need any additional written documentation about agreeing to reschedule the hearing to July 16th, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Thank you. Mark A. Meyer, Esq. Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP 1200 17th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: (303) 623-9000 ilircsimile: (303) 623-9222 mail: "mmeyer@rothgerber.com" **************************************************************************** NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may constitute an attorney-client communication that is privileged at law. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can be corrected. **************************************************************************** >>> "Esther Gesick" <egesick@co.weld.co.us> 6/6/2008 3 :30 PM >>> Mark, I received the attached letter requesting a continuance of the case for USR #1629 (Slater/United Power) currently scheduled for June 25, 2008. In working with Mr. Foster's assistant, I understand that they are proposing a continuance to Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. Please consult with your associates and let me know if this will work with your schedules. I will also note that, at this time there are no other hearings scheduled, all five Commissioners are scheduled to be in attendance, and a continuance would also be supported by the Department EXHIBIT Planning Services. EX�'NBIT Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board 915 10th Street 1 Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 356-4000 X4226 (970) 352-0242 (fax) ---Original Message From: Debbie Leebove (mailto:dleebove@f ostergraham.coral Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 3 :08 PM To: Esther Gesick Cc: David Foster; Cynthia M. Treadwell; Dan Calisher; lmpurdy@centexhomes.com Subject: Letter to Weld Cty BOCC requesting new hearing date Esther, Please forward the attached letter to Mr. Jerke from David Foster. We appreciate your help in forwarding the letter to Mr. Barker, Mr. Clark and Mr. Meyer as well. Thank you very much, Debbie Leebove Executive Assistant to David Wm. Foster 1111)ster Graham Milstein Miller & Calisher, LLP 621 17th Street, 19th Floor, Denver, CO 80293 Firm: 303-333-9810 Direct: 303-962-7082 Fax: 303-333-9786, www.fostergraham.com • 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE • THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS 7/1/08 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. I, , HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR USR-1629 IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICT. Michelle Martin Name of Person Posting Sign • Signature of Person Posting Sign STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this3n day of l, Q , 2008. WITNESS my hand and official seal. po sti Noe, DEBRA Notary Public BRDDHEAD) °ft% CO'43' E0F G My Commission Expires: [tioliVeaO6, „c, za.zoo EXHIBIT • l I.0 USk u (Z' 1 .',t 'A °3f 14iit., r P 10:::14!: r r t:r •. +l+^ •-:•-4F€K t. . ,i-s.• yr • • •$ a 44, i Y �� ; C s z+, f }�,,T •-t J'^� ..'5:':4•.; 4 414-F: 111.3:55' ''" ..-:: '' ' C .•:$..: .:' • ; '.'..3.; ; !:S'. -ii si.„' 113/4 t`tir. '.11:.44'... .1 . 4 . ' .. • .,•: ! , i f v .:: 'Al •t - a i $ t '#t 'IC' YYyft• .. Al (-' t � 7k, a . 1 , I v`, t t v' y !: .i a.. r "set. .f^ s: ^J. 1 ? }.l t'' 1 tT i P. i'€+( %' } i. 1 • • e ' t . ?J k••:-I: �i-tI}� a + 8 5 r �v 5.4(7,, 1 �. ¢i ' • 4 7' E / , 4� "P2 s t '4 • ..,•,'4, s ° r d 'a f y ,# L'}. •A #q• .?y/ { Y"f y� ,+ "+iii :. Y,t ''{i •,,,!..p.••• > it?s..• tfa9' 114'45 ,.•.:' +SPf5 ' f4 :, � . a♦h ! r 'X i ' i Fes( },f .'~ y. t• •k `. �. r t6 Y P' � ��A�'t,',.',4•„'''.• . {� • r t' i�f. µ� A � � t e � rt � � t � �'j4 • ' f r yt #' : ...3t � � 'i'� 1 *1,y). V ag, , : . 1' } 5)4. ° ii € • , " f ' •1' 'a `` ' 14 > i .i *444:74 ::•77.7'7.7'7 �; r d; v x&" t •€C • a# •Egg. ° ! fi' #,,, „c $ . tuE.. :k v. rr• a', ".'+ yl '.+.C.',.,.0; '. ' •, t 8w.-A,' ..•;_i ,r .i r Sd S• • #'E. . 1 e' > t' g $ s y`ri it.e h ` LlY b �4 �l Y :: q B t '§t 1*.tT , 1......,t; E �d I . �2 P+a:, .z wt.1:4-,./,.rxr :' d }a, w..:'� -'''„ a'`` 'i•. f d } i 1 ,art k{} #` t x k i,.. • pA .11: "'t.+ '' i t '^''t 'y r ' '11 •dS Y rs a r# .. 1.7 r t' @wg t' , • It • sYr ` •i} . ";T2 »- ° - g 'r% (t; -,+ }� r. l • Y 7 , taoy t,' t ;'-„�, 744.,:t1..:} & kA�g §f„i '' { ♦- I§iiPr,. ."It 4 ""t7 i ¢i �? r °$ iii: a ;y'¢ r) v" `�:� -• .,_ - 1 fi r �, �y♦ s F 4¢%.4441::47,544 torl '5147'17715 5 4 .,15:44 '.ud. r24' x �7 ' • � v ws,4 HP7:1:7 ' xy ' 'c."P:-.;•„04:PC t•••••t r ' t. t ar ay•'alas . .i ,11:€4,:.•-•474,7:•••404-7t.4,774-4t ' }-f4 x2 ✓gyt T ES %,...1; { i • y 5a ..r iti a t • t • re.::*-r• • 1 4 t • -'• • fis:' ' 1,...•:,,,./„.,.h4„..h kE` 1, ;. a ti t :; t to Irk yry� { % p , r t> p ,. :: PI! 'P _:sFs y , ' • ,' r - Y''. .,-'+7€ +� ,• yg! "U t 57'44474:54f575, 'd� j � [4i rl# $•_ • '" i • ti_t '''.1:t"- � z f � s•r•gy PP} ,'„ T}' r i :51;•::::;:%.,-, r f N tt I. , 'tr , ...•" f t * i ' „ et t „ 2$1,4*,-, a yt aX i • i t 3, £ t aut. # 775 ^"t 55 •R{ .. j 7 r- , r a 4 as " a ; • rt i �4 n �{ t ¢ru 4th " ' }{�5 ,,. . ....... .. .,. .Y ,:#'� t .�,� ' ' r a:: y S/-0� :.•F I p'Y.� � , lye ,. - l'47:-'3,,t,13 s � • r i .s: ' {4t.,, ;4,2 , C f 14---t .Ai', ��rr;ti..;.1 lr tA ! ;" f am,':. { ^.yi r y'A4 v� `1F'. .... t s+' i ;3' t�Ax�Vii'' 'tiao I' :0:-. a3�, ;y 44:rxF pc. 4" A,4,-:a[.. .'�.' 'eZ . ._, *114,•',Y:y� >;11 ,";•,..i„ L �e *_"*�' ?4r. � ((4�' •1!"0.---°sR�m�'�""AA4 + )ik� C f t sk S ,,,c.-4•.:4,.,..t t4 4 t ) b "F'. a .r "9 4: :1*. 1 .t4 C x ;r Qar L .. - { , :b I ! ,G$_ •4")),441K:."::*: + }, imys4 ''t L7 t•` `rS 1�,+�i 1.V ti..j.1.`r3 y •, s 4•{a3' ;Si -;.."4-41/43$1,`141C -,.,d( + +'43 } 1.,,,-4‘,-• !�: 7'+�' r ,y +' x1 ii;31•. :;'-: CitY4. 11 • ?P:- t .,� ` r f 5• � t • 1{yin �i` • } �.Y ' { r• '-' • t;;•;'!';'''" (C.-147' r ( R , 1-• ;h.'''. _�arkr:,;' �p .. '' 4. 'II [ n Ii "e. 11. is i"tit ' r # .6 > 8 k l �. 3, ' •a�Ty� f , it, 1 .4xf pY { ``'d A f . t k Rj Y �.�' 'Jr'p $ Y`A {It • k ' toy. t 9' �Y:,� y I y. ' f j Aa.y a ..:.9, -.. k !' '. � "38 f. fir.. ₹. . t 1 'A p y.i�j �v+ I • • j{{; • ;.n # Q5,�i ,, ,. l.'. i �� x}$( _'. il t' .S: "`8# T I t , IMt Y i) I �h t f b 1+1... d . , � p" gC.n i F }.b 5g " ..may t }? >,_ f I� i( I. yy� c/Lc •fPj,%`S Tsai g • t h � 6 � f.1k '{ y' to • , • 1 4:: iii ri4 tI s 1,454•4 "R i,c `},j�y'?�„ ' a N • • I i d$." w ,E�- "fIF,.• " i{ Ait .Y 4 K S.i as s"yqy. x _ A .r` ref 11 krt1 > t• ��}-..: tea ry,,,�..[., i i k'F� i4yy'Y j 4 { r.x K t. .. 4 tl191 '( ',.f •F:1, ;-;;•; ' d ftA, ,tu + er 4+ 9st 4.2or [rrArr' !'r'".Y".m"#.&3" .t* w�'N',, {R .,. k r'�.`ik. w. r.µ. Y - . t -. .rw#{ h -s. � 5 - r : ,k S ; 4, i a ! *, A . e .tr ,:"..„:'''k, dr i „- " r a "+.y :.. " _ t. rte.., *� • i`i'i 1 .r t 'ate.+Gw• — :. tl' ''''' . . .�`'; rc x� t` t'• # ;*^,. ,.. ST- • ¢r..,:.atr✓�t• t k • .i••:•'•‘•.,:-... { t. }�[��••M1�MM+a.✓Q.# y _ AM },. q w • Y ,L0-04 e- -" �s t t • -,°,41?-:-;;6a1- nom. • e a s .„,,,r .. �." s f,,t.•3 j x*-:ft 'ai '""$"sr "— "r. AC::..w 44:".. `•▪ +' !_ . �"'4rx1 ms, .ty s7 y44 �b '41t A 4 '946' tF '>pd f"''. \''a.,•r r )$ '?`''"wt'•n "a _- m. :' a w. i9e0si n fit. '}x A .. � -,4 Y'.' t' `A" +t .'4 .e•, ,.p. 'b."i••.. "" i, -666•6Z,14- .......j.; s. "' t,,,„„,,„,......;'fi ?fs�4?-, '3"u+�Q* }.,., t f'4 •^ i ,y. �" w M17Ly�•c r ' • • '!tr.-SC.- ".,_sy^ . ,..".''^i. .� A s: y ' T h � ,ta .r^ r01` .7-44.7,7-",7:.; ' "* �, ' e t • '°**2‘,...„,,. ,yt tr; Aria, 44:4>„..p.**::' - •4.;, k,- ' _'4r. v.r�`•. o"S .-. :,}.}T' Hb~ -4,-,-4,-• -,..--:,---,- -.: ", h('fn •• ---/ a ..—, ,p. ,,.nd r e.441.2#-Z; - •.--,• .. fi + ..a .i. - w - ! W¢ µt'tx x ^" 'ya ',�" !i'w'•r•fi 4 ot- V,~ .er.?;;St.. ✓ _ y _ -' �r+j a: wF ,dd G2 S .s ,J Q W T !�'"' T• X" ^'`H Ca' .� ,, .., t.a . 4 ;I,. .I M&.yy ," g*4y y ` l i < ,rn t { 2 K "�Y` i.:.� ! - ,..�Z Y 7hi+��ik 5 r µ <D 4• •G,ka^"' a.S •' µ ' °_k a r i 1, - '1'y ` . o O o y,,'� r,-;:,10.:, . u. .. `a �w )• .'''..•- : 14 .,< °, 'n �e."''.03� a � `"f 2k*C ,f,.i.p f ft b . +r_ a { .. n f " <<ys. ,g a ,. ."1:, ,rte„ `4"'u (<'�A ,y;. .}{�1 . '!` ;,11 t. ^,, a ~ ' * '-` X � i 1pitsYf._, yam$ .r' /' $e'. I .T sl'/'R ,wu*b' -s�S • ii, ' S q� ! *. r M�'.'F'yjd„x.^r`'2i ! ..w: , ' }l4 YF^ i. .' •dj° t t A N .✓ % 'Cl a ,} "FJ{n C S.Yi•. T' t ,.t 1.� a'4< • i ' Y "Y. —.4t7:41-11.C.4..)—iii?a = .3 -t ^TA"•.a ri .f c + . a ', A( x R� �. igi i .a +fit'"' ! -;,n�R ,2 9. .FF 4)'.',4C.4:44)%4.. <ym<"a ��` ,tiy. µk a1. frr a'nee,;1' .' � G., } � , }\, .a. M y ?city' Y o ..ate' `t J *` 5-t Y '4.4 47:1;4 wt4 '"" ..- Sit . F: G1 . ♦- 1 uM"�i�1M' :.s r t +e)),i b,6 I EA y �i,. Nf.aJ�Hc h '•.e`•' ., y . ?'`•..�� ,R' '� :,'Y�ji i;'.. `' 4 ",,r:""6 - .``ham.;2" r.. 'y�_^ 't"�� *yr'•„",tr: ^'cY"'. ,'ai ^g' .. !'T xsr 7 'r� i}' K. x D Ai+l .. ".4 ,may yv ii t f-.40'P , 9Tgt'r fa•d � ,: •''' -• ,,,?-.•.'1"7,‘ ▪ t re A L ,• „ s y/'+., �N'1 �'R' �` YtT " ,. r -• .e. „m ,ter_ J.„..,..„.1/2„,,,....v,„... ..,-,,..„.,..„ ...„.. i f "J� i >id"1 ,fin X I?' ^'„JX„D,i{ *r"'2' .,� s . .rte."' "a alfi'.. .. ov.131r4,yt.. - . a"q' Z... t "P X�'Y .. f R} < r tee ' • #�s ��} �g i 2.,,` n z- ,{y y+r� it:".." '•\ t T- s } c:!"4.)"t k L iw�f " °•r+, `. rY' a i .4..;"'-' :. p". Xr�:°i t y X+ k Tr no m r >•Z' +u syd yrTs� av r .4. ' "E.` trig ti a i" 6�b.•i6L?aa3F�.�i aF ^4x2 6 ,: 4+n.` .: r Esther Gesick 000m: Rob Masden nt: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:15 PM : Esther Gesick Subject: FW: United Power substation Original Message From: Saulino, Lyndsee [mailto:lsaulino@summitbt.com] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:59 PM To: Rob Masden Subject: United Power substation Dear Mr. Rob Masden, My name is Lyndsee Saulino and my husband Andrew and I are current residents of Liberty Ranch in Mead, CO. We both are 23 years old and just recently got married. We have been living in our new home since April of 2007. This is the first home for both of us so it is a very new and exciting experience. This is the home and neighborhood that we want to raise our children in. Liberty ranch is a very lively and friendly place to live. There are always children playing and having a great time and many of the families in the neighborhood have get-togethers so we can have a chance to meet everyone. Once Andrew and I learned of a possible United Power Substation being built a few hundred feet from our home we were instantly scared. We attended the first informational hearing for the substation and since then we have been trying to fight it. At that first meeting the employees of United Power were not very helpful or informative at all. They basically said Illtis is what we are doing and there is nothing you can do about it. Since that meeting the sidents of Liberty Ranch have done so much to keep everyone together so we can fight this. United Power says that they have no other options of places to build this substation, but they are just saying that so they can have the easy way out. As long as they don't have to spend more money than they have to they will say whatever it takes to win this. All of the residents are fighting this because of many reasons such as: 1) The constant worry if there will be health risks if exposed to EMF. Many scientists have researched this topic and have found that it is not safe to be exposed to EMF for a long period of time. I have done my research online and in books and in the majority of the articles I read scientists did say that homes, schools and playgrounds should not be built near electrical power lines. Like I said before my husband and I want to have kids and raise them in this neighborhood, but after reading everything that we have I am not so sure anymore. 2) If this substation were to be built the property values of all of the homes in the neighborhood will go dramatically down. The market is already bad enough as it is and adding a huge substation to the end of our street is going to affect it even more. I have talked to at least 5 realtors and they have all said that it will affect the value of our home once we decide to sell. No one would want to live next to a giant power substation! It will take so much longer to sell our home if there is a power substation right next to the development. People have a lot of expectations when buying a new home. Two major things that Andrew and I looked at when we bought our home were the location and its surroundings. If we would have known that there was possibly going to be a substation built so close we would not have bought this home. United Power has said that this 0 ubstation will help give us better power, but honestly there is nothing wrong with our ower now. They also said that our monthly power bill will increase if this is built. Many of us struggle enough with bills as it is. We don't need this substation to make it worse. Especially, if it is not needed. 3) No one wants to wake up and look out their window at a giant electrical substation! Many of us had to pay a $10, 000.00 lot premium so we could have a beautiful view of the open land. Mead is a beautiful town and if there is a substation on the land then we just wasted $10, 000.00. When Andrew and I first moved in to our home we were so excited for Illople to come see what a beautiful land we live on and how great our neighborhood is. But f this substation gets built we won't be able to say our neighborhood or land is beautiful anymore. I really hope you and your fellow commissioners can take a step back and see where all of us are coming from. Not just for the current residents but for anyone that has ever considered living in the town of Mead. I know it would mean the world to all of us and our families if you deny United Powers request to build this substation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Andrew & Lyndsee Saulino 13741 Wrangler Way Mead, CO 80542 • • 2 Esther Gesick sorom: William Garcia nt: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:31 AM : Esther Gesick Subject: FW: TMSM-Spam: Letter from Homeowner Regarding Wednesday, July 16th Hearing Attachments: Letter.WeldCountyHearing7.16.O8.doc _I Letter.WeldCounty Hearing7.16.0... Original Message From: apbloom@juno.com Sarris [mailto:aliceasarris@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:43 AM To: William Garcia Subject: TMSM-Spam: Letter from Homeowner Regarding Wednesday, July 16th Hearing Dear Mr. Bill Garcia, The attached letter is from homeowners in the Liberty Ranch subdivision concerning the upcoming hearing Wednesday afternoon, July 16th, with United Power and a proposed power substation in the neighborhood. This letter was also posted to you, which you should receive shortly. We would appreciate your time in reviewing this prior to the meeting on Wednesday. Thank you for your time, ith and Alicea Sarris iberty Ranch Homeowners • [j. EXHIBIT 1 (t < 2≤1 Weld County Commissioners 915 Tenth Street P.O. Box 758 • Greeley,CO 80632 July 11, 2008 Dear Mr. Bill Garcia, I am a homeowner in the Mead Liberty Ranch subdivision and would appreciate your consideration of my concerns regarding United Power's proposed power station in our neighborhood as it pertains to the upcoming hearing on Wednesday,July 16,2008. We have also met with the Town of Mead who has written a Letter of Resolution to you, stating that this is not the right location for a substation and that it does not fit into their Comprehensive Plan. I,as well and the majority of the homeowners here,do not approve of this substation because of the negative impact it poses on our community. Choosing to buy a home in a new building development was no small decision and such a facility is not only an eyesore but a major threat to the value of my home. Research shows that a power facility of this nature adversely affects the value of a home up to twelve percent. As a homeowner starting from scratch, I have invested a lot of time and money into the building and landscaping of my new home. We intentionally moved away from high-voltage lines in our former neighborhood and would not have purchased our new home had we known about United Power's plan to construct a substation here. In addition to devaluing our property,this facility also presents a threat to the families and young • children who live and play in this community. We specifically chose this neighborhood because the multitude of young kids(thirty plus) is the perfect fit for our own young family of three children. It is incompatible to erect a high-voltage substation immediately next to a neighborhood where so many children live and play and it creates a huge safety hazard. In the January 15,2008 hearing, United Power emphasized their"immediate need"for this facility because it was supposed to have been built in 2006 in preparation of meeting a demand they now face in 2008. As a corporate entity whose purpose is to provide power, it seems that they would be specifically financed to accommodate such a need in an appropriate timeframe and under appropriate conditions that would best service their communities. Making the plea that they are now, in 2008, suddenly in a hurry to address the power shortage, from what I see as a lack of foresight and proper planning on their part, should not necessitate an urgency to build in a location like Liberty Ranch at the expense of the homeowners. Furthermore, it is unethical for United Power to consider a site to the financial detriment of the very community members they are servicing simply because it is more"cost effective"for them. From the first meeting in November 2007 to the January hearing,United Power was unable to provide any evidence that they sought alternative sites for constructing this facility. If the need is so urgent, I ask,why didn't they cut their loses six months ago when the Weld County Planning Commission denied their proposal in favor of the homeowners case against their substation and seek a new site where they could presently have a fully operable facility meeting the power demand?Compromising the value of our property and safety of our children should not fit into any service company's plan to meet a need within a community and,therefore, I strongly urge you to deny this proposal. • Sincerely, Keith Sarris Esther Gesick om: Rob Masden nt: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:59 AM o: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: UNITED POWER, SLATER SUBSTATION Attachments: 92369-COMMISSIONERS LETTER.txt 92369-COMMISSIO NERS LETTER.txt... Original Message From: JOdy [mailto:jodyo@k2cable.net] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:26 AM To: Douglas Rademacher; Dave Long; Rob Masden; Bill Jerke; William Garcia Subject: UNITED POWER, SLATER SUBSTATION Not sure if you remember me or not, but I was on the town board in Platteville for over 6 years and have met some of you and know that you have a genuine consern for the people of Weld County. Now as a resident of this community Liberty Ranch, I am asking you to stand behind us and support us, and take our oppositions into consideration when deciding this matter. Thank you for your time •dy Orback • EXHIBIT SE use#429 1 Monday, July 14, 2008 • To All Concern: I am a resident of Liberty Ranch. We have lived here for just over a year. This neighborhood is filled with young families and very concerned citizens. We have not been given a choice about the placement of this substation, in fact it was very much a surprise to us, after we moved in. We were not told of this plan when we purchase our home and feel this was inappropriate on the behalf of United Power. The re-sale value of our homes near this facility will be less desirable than in other areas because of the placement of this facility. With the housing market the way it is,this is just one more thing we would have to deal with, if and when we decide to sale. The health risk exists, both pro and con regarding living near an electromagnetic field and/or substation. Although there is no firm evidence to confirm the level of risk,why take the chance. Scientists are doing research everyday and more often than not, to late,find evidence of harmful things that can effect the human body over periods of time. So why take unnecessary chances with our neighborhood, both young and old alike, Having served a community as a board member for over 6 years, in Platteville, I know the importance of listening to the people and their concerns. So I hope that you will listen to what we have to say and take to heart, that our concerns are genuine and make the right decisions that will be beneficial to the people of this community and the future residents as well. Thank you for your time • Jody O eft di Alct Roy wC.G c.'.t ... • Esther Gesick 0-0m: Bill Jerke nt: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:21 AM : Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Proposed United Power Substation at Liberty Ranch Attachments: Liberty Ranch proposed substation letter.pdf it Liberty Ranch proposed substat... Original Message From: MATT STUBBS [mailto:mistubbsl6@msn.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:44 PM To: Douglas Rademacher Cc: Dave Long; Rob Masden; Bill Jerke; William Garcia Subject: Proposed United Power Substation at Liberty Ranch Mr. Douglas Rademacher and Fellow Commissioners, I am writing this e-mail in regards to the upcoming United Power substation hearing scheduled for Wednesday, July 16. Unfortunately, due to work conflicts, my husband and I will not be able to attend the meeting, however, I wanted to share our feelings on the proposed substation. I am including a letter I originally sent the Weld County Planning Department, which I have slightly updated. As residents of the Liberty Ranch Subdivision, we ask that you please consider the affect this substation will have on our neighborhood. Oh ank you in advance for taking the time to read the attached letter and please know what n important issue this is to our family. Sincerely, Laura, Matt and Kyle Stubbs 13651 Wrangler Way Mead, CO 80542 970-405-1471 • EXHIBIT Ic- USt WY 29 1 • July 10, 2008 Douglas Rademacher Weld County Commission PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Mr. Douglas Rademacher and Fellow Commission Members: I am writing this letter in response to the electrical substation United Power is proposing to build south of Highway 66 and east of County Road 5.5. After attending the informational open house hosted by United Power, I came to realize how massive and close in proximity this structure will be located to our home. My two main concerns regarding this project are the potential decrease in property value and the possible health threats. Based on the concept pictures provided by United Power, I feel this structure would be aesthetically devastating to our neighborhood and would severely damage the appeal of our subdivision to potential buyers in the future. My other concern is regarding the effect this structure may have on the health of my family and me. Information I have found on this topic does not appear to be conclusive one way or the other. Some research indicates there are no health threats while other research suggests a multitude of health related problems. In a subdivision slated to receive an elementary or grade school building and already full of neighborhood children, I do not believe we should take chances when it comes to their well-being. • As I understand, the reason this site was chosen by United Power was because it was the easiest solution. I feel a structure such as an electrical substation would be better suited to an industrialized or undeveloped area not adjacent to a residential development. I understand United Power wants to "fast track" this project, but certainly the impact it will have on the residents of Liberty Ranch Subdivision makes it worth spending the time and effort to find a more suitable location for this site. On a personal note, my husband and I have a 19- 3. month old son. We have worked very hard so we could _' buy a house to raise our son and any future children in a safe environment. Those dreams will be replaced by the constant fear our health may be jeopardized and the knowledge that the investment we made in our home will probably be a losing one if this structure is built. We have been so happy in this subdivision and blessed with wonderful and caring neighbors. I have included a photo of my son Kyle, he and my husband mean the world to me, please do not take away our dream to live somewhere we can be safe, happy and f;.4rt healthy. Thank you for your time and consideration on '" this matter. ; _' Sincerely, I� Laura Stubbs 13651 Wrangler Way • Mead, CO 80542 (970) 405-1471 • PLEASE ATTACH TO YOUR COPY OF THE AUDIOTAPED TRANSCRIPTION OF: HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Re: USR-1629 UNITED POWER `� 111�N �� DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 4, 2008 THIS TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN FILED XX_ Signature not required Unsigned; signed signature page and change sheets, if any, to be filed at trial Not signed, notice duly given pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure Exhibits enclosed Signed by the deponent with changes inserted in original transcript; copy of changes also enclosed • Unsigned, with changes, copy of which is enclosed FILED WITH: ESTHER CI&DCK, CLERK TO THE BOARD DATE FILED: ) U -42 Lui /6 ,,j(;( RECEIVED BY: (-Q,j lav Enclosures: (As above noted) cc: Esther Ois..ck CaESiCC • EXHIBIT Wilson George Court Reporters, Inc. 674405 Mason Court, Suite 117,Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-224-3000 600 17th Street,Suite 2800 South,Denver, CO 80202 303-861-5000 &(,Se gal&Z9 801 8th Street, Suite 220,Greeley,CO 80631 970-353-0300 800-845-3001 • WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING Wednesday, June 4 , 2008 10 : 04 a.m. Docket No . 2008-31 .A Re : USR-1629 United Power APPEARANCES : Commissioner William H. Jerke, Chairman Commissioners present : Robert D. Masden William F. Garcia David E . Long Douglas Rademacher (Excused) • Also present : Bruce Barker, County Attorney Esther Gesick, Clerk Michelle Martin, Planning Department Representative The following people spoke : David Foster, Esq. , Liberty Ranch HOA and Centex Homes Richard Clark, Esq. , United Power • Wl 1 S O n 405 Mason Court,Suite 117,Fort Collins,CO 80524 970-2243000 600 17th Street,Suite 2800 South,Denver,CO 80202 303-8615000 801 8th Street,Suite 220,Greeley,CO 80631 970-353-0300 8(10-845.9001 6,51IP court reporters, inc. WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 2 1 (The following is an FTR audiotaped recording • 2 starting at 10 : 04 : 52 a.m. ) 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Today is June 4 , 2008 . We ' re 4 here on the 9 : 00 hearing docket and we ' re going 5 to be hearing oral arguments for appeal of Planning 6 Commission denial , the Site Specific Development Plan 7 USR-1629 . 8 I suppose that what we need to do is make a 9 record on it first . Counsel, is that appropriate? 10 MR. BARKER: I think that would be 11 appropriate . Give me a second here . In essence, what 12 you' re hearing today is the appeal of the Planning 13 Commission denial with a Use by Special Review Permit, 14 No. 1629, for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or 15 Public Agency for the A. Dale Slater Trust B, United 16 Power Inc . 17 This was noticed for the last -- I think it 18 was two weeks ago when we had the first hearing. And 19 the notice went out to those people who were within a 20 certain distance from the property. 21 It cleared all the people that were 22 originally noticed in from the Planning Commission and 23 then also a publication on those . 24 THE CHAIRMAN: And I think it would be good 25 if you would go ahead and rehearse for us with respect • JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 3 • 1 to what happened at the last meeting, because as I 2 understand it, we don' t have any reason for a 3 full-blown hearing here because I 've reviewed 4 materials . 5 And there will be a vote that I will cast a 6 deciding vote on very soon, but would you kind of 7 rehearse for us what that whole process would be for 8 the record? 9 MR. BARKER: Sure. What we discussed the 10 last time was that there would be -- we needed to have 11 some determinations made by the Board. 12 First off was whether the issue could even be • 13 appealed to the Board and that was the issue in which 14 there was the 2-2 tie . 15 And you being absent were to listen to the 16 tape, also review the materials that have been 17 submitted, review the arguments made by both parties 18 and then make a determination today. 19 The second thing is if the determination is 20 that an appeal can be had, then the second issue would 21 be what is the criteria for that, and there will need 22 to be a discussion between the Board and then also the 23 attorneys . 24 I 'm hearing from both of them arguments as to • 25 what the criteria would be if the appeal is to go JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 4 1 forward. • 2 The third thing would be to actually have the 3 hearing, depending upon what the second item is 4 regarding the criteria, dictates what the hearing will 5 be, length, and that sort of thing. 6 So first off would be to hear your decision 7 regarding the appeal . 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Because it potentially renders 9 everything else moot anyway. 10 MR. BARKER: Right . 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, and if you ' re ready for 12 that, and I know that there ' s nq reason for any input • 13 into it at this point because Ildid have the 14 opportunity to review a lot of the written information 15 here as well as listen to the tape for the last 16 meeting as well . 17 It is a great question and it was actually 18 kind of enjoyable to listen to the various attorneys, 19 including our own, debating back and forth, who ' s on 20 first, who ' s on second, and the whole thing as to 21 whether or not it ' s appropriate for this Commission to 22 actually hear this or not . 23 And some of the things that I did hear that I 24 think are leading to my decision that are important • 25 for us to consider is that, it appeared to me that I JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 5 1 heard that there were statutes that do allow or at• 2 least suggest that they allow for appeal from a 3 Planning Commission for even this type of an action to 4 the Board of Commissioners within a county. 5 It appears that there does seem to be some 6 statute that allows for that even though there may be 7 some statute that is vague on it . 8 The other thing that really is very telling 9 for me is what our Home Rule Charter calls for. Our 10 Home Rule Charter undeniably calls for all Planning 11 Commission decisions to be appealable to the Board of 12 Commissioners . • 13 And that ' s pretty meaningful to me, because I 14 look back and the way I think about this stuff, this 15 level of government , I should say rather than the word 16 stuff . 17 The way I think about this level of 18 government is that we had founders in 1976 , who went 19 back and created a charter, state statute, allowing 20 for them to go ahead and create a charter form of 21 government . 22 A charter form of government in my mind 23 doesn' t allow us to make all kinds of decisions that 24 are contrary to statute, but it does allow us to go • 25 ahead and make decisions about the form of governance JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO.2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 6 • 1 that we have . 2 The form of governance, I think, especially 3 if there ' s something that isn' t directly in opposition 4 to this within statute would allow for, within our 5 form of governance, for the Planning Commission, 6 calling for their decisions to be appealable than to 7 the Board of Commissioners . 8 Again, it keeps government to its closest 9 possibilities rather than just sending it off to 10 nonelectives to court . It does keep it as local as 11 possible. 12 People who are, I wouldn ' t use the word • 13 recallable, but certainly up for election every four 14 years, that you' re up to that public scrutiny. 15 I think those things are all very important 16 ideals in making this kind of a decision that those 17 are the kinds of things that lead to my decision that 18 decisions like this can be made locally and as close 19 to the people as possible, and indeed, I think that ' s 20 what our Planning Commission ruling and the County 21 charter really allows for, that to be something that ' s 22 appealable . 23 So, if the question -- Bruce, you ' ll have to 24 help me if this is to be restated properly. If there . 25 was a motion to deny jurisdiction of this Board of JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 7 • 1 Commissioners to be able to hear the appeal and 2 that ' s, I believe, the motion that I heard and that 3 that motion then failed on a 2 , 2 vote . So it was a 4 motion to deny this as being the jurisdiction; is that 5 correct? 6 MR. BARKER: It didn' t fail on a 2 , 2 vote . 7 It was basically waiting for your determination. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Waiting for my decision. 9 MR. BARKER: Correct . 10 THE CHAIRMAN: What I 'm going to decide, I 11 kind of alluded to this obviously, is that I 'm going 12 to -- the motion was to deny this jurisdiction. • 13 MR. BARKER: To not accept the jurisdiction 14 of the appeal . I think that was the way it was 15 phrased by Commissioner Garcia. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well , I would be voting 17 against the motion then because I believe that we are 18 the proper venue to be able to go ahead and hear this 19 on this level . 20 So I would be voting against the Garcia 21 motion at this point . So, Esther, if that ' s what 22 you'd register. So that motion then would fail on a 23 3-2 vote . Okay. So we 've got that in hand. 24 And now, Bruce, you probably need to advise • 25 these good folks out here again about what happens JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 8 • 1 potentially when there ' s only four of us here . You 2 can have a 2 , 2 vote. So if we ' re going to proceed 3 down that road, then we need to talk further and give 4 these folks that information. 5 So, Bruce? 6 MR. BARKER: I think we gave the advisement 7 the last time on the four individuals here and you saw 8 the effect of that . I think the request would be of 9 United Power as to whether you wish to proceed today 10 or go ahead and continue it to a day when all five 11 could be present . 12 MR. CLARK: First of all, my name is Dick • 13 Clark with the law firm of Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons 14 in Denver, 1200 17th Street . We would choose to go 15 ahead today understanding (inaudible) . 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So next then, Bruce, I 17 guess the question that needs to be handled is their 18 presentation with respect to, not jurisdiction, we 've 19 established that, but criteria for hearing that, 20 because that ' s supposedly along the way the next that 21 we would hear about . Is that correct? Commissioner 22 Long? 23 COMMISSIONER LONG: Do we need another motion 24 that would approve or deny jurisdiction ability and • 25 then go into that next step? JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9 1 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that clears up that 2 issue. If you wanted to proceed, it would be sort of 3 implied to vote no on that previous motion meant you 4 wanted to go ahead, but if you could do an affirmative 5 motion to that effect, it would be ideal . 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Long. 7 COMMISSIONER LONG: Mr. Chairman, I ' d like to 8 move the motion to accept jurisdiction of the appeal . 9 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Second. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, it ' s been moved by 11 Commissioner Long, second by Commissioner Masden to 12 accept this Board being the proper jurisdiction for 13 this appeal . Discussion first? • 14 Commissioner Garcia? 15 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: The record has quite a 16 bit of information, as you know, Mr. Chair, about this 17 topic . So we won' t rehash it here, but I 'd ask for a 18 roll call . 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Further discussion? Seeing 20 none, let ' s go ahead and have a roll call vote on this 21 motion then to accept this Board as being the proper 22 venue . 23 (Roll was taken. Garcia, no, Long, yes, 24 Rademacher, excused, Masden, yes, Jerke, yes . ) 25 THE CHAIRMAN: So that motion does pass on a • JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 10 1 three out of four vote . So that ' s been established.• 2 Identify yourself . 3 MR. FOSTER: David Foster representing the 4 Liberty Ranch HOA and Centex Homes, 621 17th Street . 5 It would probably disappoint all of you if I 6 didn' t object in some sort of way for the record so 7 that I can at least preserve my opportunity to appeal 8 that decision if you have given the appellate an 9 opportunity to (inaudible) . 10 So, for the record, I just want to object and 11 will continue to play the game here and participate, 12 but we have no objection to (inaudible) . • 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. It ' s duly noted for the 14 record. At this point, Bruce, would you provide any 15 information that we need to have with respect to 16 holding a hearing based upon establishment of 17 criteria. 18 Do you have advice for us at this point? 19 MR. BARKER: First of all , I ' ll talk about 20 the resolution that was passed by the Board on April 21 21st of this year regarding this very issue . 22 What it said was, Be it further resolved by 23 the Board that the criteria for the Board to determine 24 whether or not it should grant the appeal shall be 25 whether the Planning Commission exceeded its • JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 11 1 jurisdiction or abused its discretion in denying the • 2 Site Specific Development Plan, Special Review Permit 3 No. 1629, subject to the provisions of 23-4-420 in the 4 A Agricultural District for A. Dale Slater Trust B and 5 United Power. 6 In essence, what the Board was saying was you 7 will not be -- and this was set for oral argument 8 today based upon the briefs, meaning that you would 9 not be hearing additional evidence . 10 In other words, saying we ' re going to review 11 the record coming up from the Planning Commission, not 12 doing a hearing de novo or a new hearing today to hear • 13 new evidence . 14 That issue is one that I think there has been 15 argument made in the briefs as to whether or not that 16 is the correct criteria . 17 And so, at this point it would be 18 appropriate, given that the issue was raised by Mr. 19 Clark, to hear from him first and then hear from Mr. 20 Foster on this issue and then any reply or rebuttal by 21 Mr. Clark. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: So the order would be 23 basically United Power' s presentation? 24 MR. BARKER: Yeah, just to go ahead and hear • 25 on this one issue what the criteria is and Mr. Clark JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 12 1 first and then hear from Mr. Foster. • 2 THE CHAIRMAN: If you' re prepared, Mr. Clark, 3 to tell us about criteria. 4 MR. CLARK: And, again, for the record my 5 name is Dick Clark from Rothberger Johnson & Lyons . 6 We represent United Power along with Mark Meyer from 7 our firm, who is here in the room, as well as several 8 executives from United Power. 9 So just to make sure everybody understands, 10 I 'm not going to be arguing about the strength of this 11 particular site . 12 I 'm not going to be arguing at this point 13 about the mistakes made by Planning Commission. I 'm • 14 only addressing one issue and that is, what criteria 15 should you apply in reviewing this particular matter. 16 And we 've submitted a brief, as Bruce has 17 alluded to. And I 'm just going to summarize briefly 18 where we ' re coming from. 19 We believe that the criteria that you should 20 use is specifically set forth in the Weld County Code . 21 And in particular that code provision is Section 22 2-4-10 . 23 That is the code that establishes what ' s 24 called appeals process . And pursuant to that • 25 particular provision, you are to act as the Board of JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 13 1 Appeals . And it provides a procedure, which says that • 2 United Power has 60 days from the date of the decision 3 to file the appeal, which we did do that within 60 4 days . 5 And then it says we have to file a complaint . 6 And that complaint has to state' the basic facts, and 7 we did that . 8 The next thing is, and this is the important 9 part for you, which indicates at 2-4-10 (d) , Board of 10 County Commissioners shall hear all of the available 11 facts . 12 Now, it doesn' t say yoti. can hear some and not 13 others . It doesn' t say you may,i hear them. It doesn ' t • 14 say you can hear them. It says1you must or, in other 15 words, shall hear them. It ' s mandatory. 16 So our position is at this particular 17 hearing, we understand that it Would have to be 18 renoticed, you would hear the a*ailable facts from 19 both sides . 20 The last time we were here Commissioner 21 Garcia actually asked me how was this process going to 22 work if there was only going to be one side? That ' s 23 never been our position. 24 We use the available facts from all sides, • 25 those that support this particular application and JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 14 1 those that oppose it . • 2 So that is the criteria we believe you should 3 use as set forth in the code . Let me mention at the 4 outset here, we understand that what is being 5 suggested is not to hear all of, the available facts . 6 It is just to try to decide whether there has 7 been an abuse of discretion or whether the Planning 8 Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction. 9 Well, that is something that we believe is 10 contrary to the state statute . There is a state 11 statute here that we discussed last time, so I 'm not 12 going to go through it in any great detail, but it is 13 30-28-110 . • 14 And that is a state statute that concerns the 15 very specific procedure that you are undergoing right 16 now and that is, where you have a facility of a major 17 utility and you have the Planning Commission 18 disapprove it, what happens? 19 Well , subparagraph B tells you what happens . 20 And it specifically indicates that, in that provision, 21 that the Board of County of Commissioners has the 22 power to overrule such disapproval by a vote of not 23 less than a majority of its entire membership and upon 24 such overruling said Board or other official in charge • 25 of the proposed construction or authorization may NNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 15 1 proceed therewith. • 2 In other words, that you are the final 3 appellate body to decide whether this goes forward. 4 Now, the last time we were here, Centex Homes 5 argued, well , wait a minute . You are a Home Rule 6 County, therefore, this doesn' t apply. 7 And that, frankly, is a misreading of the 8 law, because the Home Rule Powers Act by which 9 counties are made Home Rule counties, including 10 Greeley, specifically indicates that Planning 11 Commission decisions and Board of Appeals decisions 12 must be handled in accord with Article 28 of Title 30 . 13 And Article 28 of Title 30 is the exact • 14 statute that we are talking about here . So the Home 15 Rule Powers Act specifically references this 16 particular statute and that ' s why we believe that the 17 decision you've just made is the correct one . 18 But we have to go one step further. And that 19 is, if you only look at abuse of discretion and 20 exceeded jurisdiction, then what you ' re looking at is 21 only whether to send this back to the Planning 22 Commission for rehearing. 23 And here the specific state statute says that 24 you would not send it back. You would be the final 25 deciders, if you agree with the position of United • JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-3LA WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 16 1 Power overrule the Planning Commission and • 2 construction would start, they would proceed. 3 That is inconsistent with sending it back to 4 Planning Commission and that ' s why I 'm saying that 5 abuse of discretion and exceeded jurisdiction is not 6 the right standard here . 7 We respect Bruce ' s opinion and analysis on 8 this, but we disagree with it and we disagree with the 9 position here asserted that abuse of discretion and 10 exceeded jurisdiction is the criteria. 11 You know, it ' s especially important here to 12 take a look at all the available facts because of what 13 happened at the Planning Commission. • 14 At this Planning Commission meeting, there 15 are nine commissioners, as you know. There were only 16 five present for the hearing that day. And those 17 five, there were disagreements among them as to the 18 interpretation of the standards . There were 19 disagreements as to how they thought the procedure 20 should be handled that day and we believe it was 21 handled inappropriately. 22 But as a result of their misinterpretation, 23 they allowed testimony on things that we just don ' t 24 think there should have been any testimony on, such • 25 as, that United Power should have to use its JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 17 1 condemnation powers to exhaust all of the sites in • 2 this area . We don ' t think that ' s anywhere in your 3 standards . 4 Another one that came up is property values . 5 They thought that there could be presentation from the 6 homeowners and from Centex that property values would 7 be reduced by reason of this particular substation. 8 Well , United Power, since it wasn ' t in the 9 standards, they weren' t prepared to go forward with 10 that . 11 So, at this point, Weld County, at least on 12 property values, has heard only the side of Centex 13 Homes . You have not heard the side of United Power • 14 and that is, that we went up and had Stan Sessions, 15 who has been involved in the real estate industry here 16 in Weld County for many years, a former County 17 Assessor, take a look at this substation and -- 18 MR. BARKER: We might be getting a little 19 more into the facts at this point . I think the 20 argument, if you want to suggest wrapping it up - - I 21 think the argument that is being made is to the 22 criteria. The facts in presenting those would be a 23 second or third element or third thing to get into if, 24 in fact, that ' s the way you want to go. • 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, we have to determine JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 18 1 criteria first, so let ' s not get into that . • 2 MR. CLARK: What I 'm saying is, is the import 3 of hearing all the available facts was just evidenced 4 to you by reason of the objections here . 5 United Power has not had a chance to present 6 these facts concerning property value and they should 7 have that right and that ' s why you hear all available 8 facts, not only those from Centex Homes and the 9 homeowners, but also from us . That ' s our position on 10 the criteria. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, questions for Mr. Clark. 12 (No response . ) 13 Okay, move on then to Mr. Foster. 14 MR. FOSTER: Good morning. Thank you for 15 allowing us to have this dialogue with you. Before I 16 get to some of the comments I wanted to make - - before 17 anybody starts to feel sorry fort United Power, please 18 recognize, they were the applicant . 19 They were the one who sought the Use by 20 Special Review. They were the ones who knew what the 21 standards were because they' re in your (inaudible) . 22 And so this isn' t the time to feel sorry for 23 United Power, as the applicant, that they didn ' t have 24 a chance to respond to some of the neighbors ' concerns 25 about property value and alternate locations . • JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 19 1 I find that to be an embarrassing argument• 2 this morning and I don ' t want that thought to sit in 3 your minds for too long as we debate what the 4 appropriate (inaudible) . 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Does that have anything to do 6 with the criteria? Let ' s try and stick with the 7 criteria. Try and stick to what the criteria should 8 be . 9 MR. FOSTER: It is . It is with the criteria, 10 which is exactly why United Power, as the applicant , 11 should have been prepared to discuss alternate 12 locations and reduction in property value . 13 So, for Mr. Clark to show up and argue that• 14 United Power didn' t have the appropriate opportunity 15 to respond to those very issues ) -- 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Why don' t you move on, because 17 I 'm not following where that has anything to do with 18 criteria right now. So please go ahead and get to 19 what the criteria should be for this . 20 MR. FOSTER: You bet . So, Mr. Jerke, you in 21 particular this morning looked to your County Attorney 22 as it related to the acceptance of several bids, as it 23 relates to appropriate process and so that ' s really 24 what we are talking about today is the appropriate 25 process for the appeal . • JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 20 1 What you've just done is you 've accepted on 2 appeal to review the decision of the Planning 3 Commission. 4 This is a balancing act as you undoubtedly 5 know based on the arguments that have been offered to 6 you over the past few weeks . We 've got a state 7 statute. We 've got our charter. We 've got our own 8 ordinances . 9 There is a meshing of the two where there is 10 a discussion of what is the meaning of only? What is 11 the meaning of final decision-maker? 12 Because, as you ' ll recollect from the record, 13 those terms are used in your ordinances, in your • 14 charter as it relates to this decision. 15 So what you 've done is you've accepted on 16 appeal to review this decision. You haven' t accepted 17 on appeal to make a different decision, which is what 18 Mr. Clark is arguing in terms of the criteria and in 19 terms of the standards . 20 You have accepted on appeal the ability to 21 determine whether or not the decision was consistent 22 with the standards of Rule 106 that you had identified 23 in your resolution for us to rely on and you had a 24 pretty extensive discussion several months ago about • 25 what those standards would be . JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-3LA WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 21 1 So, the balancing act that I would suggest• 2 can only be accommodated and accomplished by not 3 allowing for a full-blown hearing, as Mr. Clark is now 4 suggesting, because there is more evidence that United 5 Power would have liked to have submitted, which they 6 had the opportunity to do in Planning Commission. 7 But it ' s for you to determine whether or not 8 there was enough evidence in the record to support the 9 final decision by the Planning Commission, because 10 they had the only jurisdiction to review this 11 particular approval , notwithstanding the fact that 12 (inaudible) , the argument this morning was valid and . 13 compelling as it relates to whether or not you should 14 be able to review such a decision by the Planning 15 Commission. 16 But that doesn' t mean in this balancing act 17 that I 'm suggesting, that you would then have the 18 authority to make a substitute determination. 19 That isn' t a balancing act . If we have spent 20 the last several weeks doing anything, what we have 21 done for sure between the two of us, is we 've 22 suggested there is some confusidn in the code . 23 It is not clear as to whether or not the 24 Planning Commission or the Board of County 25 Commissioners has certain authority. • JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO.2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 22 • 1 But what is clear is that people need to 2 understand and respect our process . And from your 3 review of the transcript, it is abundantly clear that 4 everybody who was in the room for the Planning 5 Commission hearing in January knew that the Planning 6 Commission was the final decision-maker. 7 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: If I may ask a 8 question? Mr. Foster, I 'm hearing -- maybe I 'm 9 confused and you can help clarify. 10 Mr. Clark has argued utilizing Section 11 2-4-10, appeals process, to discuss the breadth of 12 facts to be accepted or to be heard or reviewed. • 13 And I 'm understanding You to be saying that 14 the discussion, whether it be ainew decision to be 15 made or a remand type of an argument . 16 But maybe we should first talk about the 17 facts, the level of facts . And', as I had stated, Mr. 18 Clark mentions the 2-4-10 (d) , wliiich talks about, shall 19 hear all the available facts pertinent to the 20 incident . I interpret Mr. Clark' s statement of 21 incident meaning the application. 22 MR. CLARK: Correct . 23 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Mr. Foster, could you 24 address that argument in particular? I 'm talking • 25 about 2-4-10 (d) . JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 23 . 1 MR. FOSTER: The incident was the decision by 2 the Planning Commission. So, the facts that were 3 available to the Planning Commission is the record. 4 Those are the facts that were available to the 5 Planning Commission to make their determination. 6 And that is what should be relied on for your 7 determination as to whether or not they had enough 8 evidence, whether they listened to it, whether it was 9 an arbitrary and capricious decision, whether they 10 exceeded their jurisdiction based on the evidence 11 available to the final decision-maker, which was the 12 Planning Commission. • 13 And so, Mr. Garcia, I am in complete 14 agreement that that is the standard. And then the 15 question then becomes is, well .H what are the available 16 facts? 17 The available facts were the facts that were 18 made available to the fact finder. And in this 19 particular instance because you've accepted this 20 appeal, the fact finder is not the Board of County 21 Commissioners . The fact finder is the Planning 22 Commission. 23 And so, again, the applicant being United 24 Power arguing that they wanted opportunity to 25 introduce more facts is awkward 'because the fact • JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 24 1 finder in a decision of approval of this facility was • 2 the Planning Commission. And so that is consistent, 3 Commissioner, with the argument . 4 Those would be the appropriate standards in 5 my estimation. Again, I think it is relevant that the 6 bar from the perspective of a county shouldn ' t 7 continue to change in terms of what the standards are . 8 In my humble estimation, the bar was already 9 moved once, that the Planning Commission was the final 10 decision-maker. 11 Now what the decision from this morning is, 12 is the Planning Commission was the final 13 decision-maker, but we get to mike sure that they had • 14 the facts correct when they applied the appropriate 15 standards . That ' s the decisionlyou made . 16 And now what Mr. Clark , is asking in terms of 17 moving the bar again is that you are the new fact 18 finding Board and you get to determine whether or not 19 all the facts were in the record and whether or not we 20 should have even more facts (inaudible) . 21 And, again, I think it ' s about notice . I 22 think it ' s about process . I think it ' s about giving 23 folks an opportunity to rely on your (inaudible) . 24 And, again, keep in mind, the applicant is • 25 suggesting that they really wish, back in January, JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO.2008-3I.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 25 1 they had introduced more facts . That ' s the issue . • 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, I 'm going to seek a 3 little bit of clarity from Bruce so that I 'm 4 comfortable . 5 MR. CLARK: Can I respond? 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, we were going to give 7 you a chance to respond. 8 MR. CLARK: Is that okay? I can do it 9 afterward. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Why dont I ask Bruce a 11 question or two on this and see' if it helps me gain 12 some clarity in the way that I speak and think. 13 It seems to me that Mrl Foster is suggesting • 14 that we only hear the case from the perspective of, 15 did the Planning Commission do something wrong in the 16 process, kind of like, as I understand it , appellate 17 courts would work. 18 While Mr. Clark is suggesting that we follow 19 a process that would be far morel like what we normally 20 do, and we simply hear Planning Commission cases . 21 Every case comes to us and we hear several 22 hundred over the course of several years of a term of 23 a commissioner of land use cases that the Planning 24 Commission heard first and they voted up, they voted 25 down, whatever, but they obviously always then come to JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 26 1 us for final decision. • 2 It seems to me that he ' s suggesting that we 3 do that . Mr. Foster is suggesting that we somehow 4 wade through what each side would think was wrong or 5 right about the process . 6 Is that a fair representation of what the two 7 sides want? 8 MR. BARKER: I think that ' s a pretty good 9 representation of what they both want . I think I 10 could give a little bit of the history of the 11 provisions that we have in the code and the difficulty 12 that we 've had as attorneys to Itry and represent the 13 Board telling, you know, and sokt of going back and • 14 forth on this issue . 15 You have to go back to what -- I think what 16 Mr. Clark said was very correct in that Home Rule 17 counties you have certain powers to set forth how you 18 want to have your elected officials elected or 19 appointed, you know, your form of government . 20 But going back to the true issue of what you 21 have to do and what you have to follow, you have to go 22 back to state law. So I 'd have to agree with that 23 very premise . I think that ' s sort of the heart of 24 Home Rule government . . 25 With that in mind, you then go to the Home JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 27 • 1 Rule Charter. The Home Rule Charter has a provision 2 that specifically says that it was the original 3 framers of that charter, the way they set it up in the 4 section which deals with the Planning Commission. 5 And it ' s subsection 4 of Section 4-4 of the 6 Home Rule Charter. Basically there what it did was 7 say if a utility comes in, it goes to the Planning 8 Commission and then it ' s recommended, just like any 9 other land use case, to the Board of County 10 Commissioners . 11 That issue was identified after the Home Rule 12 Charter was passed as being in conflict with state • 13 statute, which if you go back to the section which was 14 30-28-110 , subparagraph 1-a, basically says that the 15 Planning Commission goes ahead and hears the issue, 16 doesn' t make a recommendation, but makes a 17 determination. 18 So early on I went back and went through some 19 memos that were written to the county attorney back in 20 the 1970s . 21 Kay Norton was an Assistant County Attorney 22 then and she wrote one which talked about utilities, 23 whether it would be, if the Public Utilities 24 Commission would have jurisdiction or authority to be • 25 an appellate body to which people -- utilities could JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO.2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 28 1 appeal , and her conclusion was yes . • 2 The conclusions of the County Attorney at 3 that time was that really state law made it so that 4 that contravened what the Home Rule Charter was 5 saying, had to follow state law. 6 And so, if you go to the section, which is 7 part of our code dealing with this, it ' s Section 8 23-2-300 , and that sets up theprocess for hearing 9 these . It goes to the Planning Commission for a 10 determination. 11 And then the question is, can there be an 12 appeal and what appellate body hears the matter after 13 that? • 14 The section that was referred to by 15 Mr. Clark, and that ' s 30-28-110 I agree with what he 16 said about subparagraph A. That makes it the Planning 17 Commission hears the matter. 18 And then under B it says that upon 19 disapproval, the Commission shall communicate its 20 reasons to the Board of County Commissioners . Then 21 the Board can then either overrule it, and if it ' s 22 overruled, then it goes on, so meaning almost pretty 23 much like it would be a de novo hearing . 24 The problem is you've got to take subsection 25 3 with that and when you look at that subsection, and • JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 29 1 this is the kicker for the problem that we 've always 2 faced. What it says is, if the public way, ground 3 space, building, structure or utility is, one, the 4 authorization or financing of which does not under the 5 law govern the same, fall within the province of the 6 Board of Commissioners or other county officials or 7 Board, the submission to the Commission shall be to 8 the body or official having such jurisdiction. 9 And the Commission' s disapproval , meaning the 10 Planning Commission ' s disapproval, may be overruled by 11 said body by a vote of not less, than a majority of its 12 entire membership or by said official . . 13 We put that provision lin that section of our 14 code, 23-2-300 . And specifically at the end we say 15 that . 16 We 've always figured that that overruling or 17 any sort of disapproval by the County could be 18 overruled. 19 For example, if the City of Greeley had a 20 sewer line it was going to put through the county and 21 there was a disapproval by the County, it could be 22 overruled by the City government because they do the 23 financing of that line . 24 The same thing with water lines . We • 25 oftentimes get requests for those . But that section, JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 30 1 the very end of that subsection C says this with • 2 respect to electric utilities . 3 In the case of a utility owned by an entity 4 other than a political subdivision, the submission to 5 the Commission shall be by the utility and shall not 6 be by the Public Utilities Commission. 7 However, the Commission' s disapproval may be 8 overruled by the Public Utilities Commission by a vote 9 of not less than a majority of its entire membership . 10 We always interpreted, basically, the appeal 11 meaning, if there was to be an appeal from a county 12 decision that it would be to the Public Utilities 13 Commission. • 14 In other words, to follow state statute 15 strictly, it says that the Planning Commission' s 16 determination under subparagraph A would be appealed 17 to the Public Utilities Commission. 18 So that is why we put that in that section. 19 The question, however, arose by United Power after the 20 disapproval back in January. They said well , can we 21 appeal this? 22 Again, being a Home Rule county, however, we 23 do have that provision that allows for appeals . And 24 to put all that together, the only criteria that I can 25 come up with to make it consistent and say who ' s • JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 31 1 making the ultimate determination, the Planning • 2 Commission, would be for you to hear the matter, but 3 only as to whether they had made any mistakes outside 4 of their jurisdiction or abused its discretion. And 5 that ' s how I come up with that recommendation to you. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I understand the 7 rehashing of all the conflicting statute and code, or 8 I try to understand it anyway. I 'm not sure that I 9 really do, but trying to understand all the conflict . 10 I guess what I find troublesome is your 11 recommendation at this point because of the fact that 12 when we hear cases, we hear full-blown cases . 13 I wouldn ' t even know, as a Commissioner with • 14 no experience in this, what I am to look for with 15 respect to whether or not the wrong decisions were 16 made by a board of volunteer Planning Commission 17 members for which I note that three voted for denial 18 of this . Two voted against with four not being there . 19 If they were following the same rules that we 20 were with respect to attendance, they wouldn' t have 21 had a quorum. You would have had to have five 22 affirmative votes to do anything. 23 So it ' s hard for me to conjure up that we 24 should only look at those things in the interest of, • 25 again, good government from my perspective . And what JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 32 1 I think we ought to be doing, if we ' re being asked to • 2 do it, as close to the people as possible, and I 'm 3 having a hard time buying into that versus the normal 4 way that we do things, which would simply be a 5 full-blown hearing. 6 Now we need to hear, obviously, still from 7 Mr. Clark. We wanted to hear some more from him on 8 this, but I just want it relayed back to you that it ' s 9 foreign to me and that may well be okay, but I 'm not 10 sure that I 'm as primed to discern what may be wrongs 11 and rights committed by the Planning Commission as 12 opposed to hearing a full-blown', case and being able to 13 vote it up or down. • 14 That I am comfortable with. We 've done that 15 for many years . So if you wantto speak any to that 16 on those reflections on what Bruce had to say. 17 Commissioner Masden. 18 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Thank you. To get down 19 to the gist of it, that is the way it appears to me 20 that we are sitting basically to hear the information 21 that the Planning Commission heard or try and find 22 fault in the decisions that the Planning Commission 23 came up with. 24 And basically it ' s bottom line for our . 25 position here today is to do that . It ' s not on the JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 33 1 case itself, but on the way the Planning Commission • 2 ruled on it . Is that right? 3 MR. BARKER: Well , that was my recommendation 4 and that was what you put into your resolution from 5 April 21st, again saying that the criteria would be 6 the Planning Commission exceeded its jurisdiction or 7 abused its discretion. 8 However, Mr. Clark is arguing that, in fact, 9 it should be a different standard as Commissioner 10 Jerke had stated that that would be more the standard 11 that you would be looking to . 12 THE CHAIRMAN: That ' s just a personal 13 observation of mine at this point because I don' t even • 14 know how, and I guess I 'm going' to become educated by 15 the attorneys in our midst, how to try to determine 16 whether a Planning Commission abused authority and 17 discretion and so on. 18 I have no idea how to determine that 19 necessarily by reviewing the records and saying they 20 went -- I have no idea how to do that at this point, 21 but I 'm sure that I would become educated in that . 22 Other colleagues want to chime in on this for 23 the moment before we go back to Mr. Clark? 24 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: I ' d like to hear from 25 Mr. Clark and finish that before we go into any • JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 34 • 1 further comment . 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clark? 3 MR. CLARK: Thank you. First of all, United 4 Power is prepared today to go forward and make oral 5 arguments on the standard or criteria, the abuse of 6 discretion or extend jurisdiction, if that ' s what you 7 decide to do. 8 Frankly, it ' s probably to our advantage to do 9 that because we think it ' s cleajr that we could show 10 you that, and it ' s faster. We 've had many discussions 11 with our client about that . 12 The truth of the matter is, if you read the • 13 code and if you read the state statutes and you look 14 at what boards the County Commissioners do across the 15 state, hearing the facts is what you do . 16 And because of the provision in your county 17 code that I 've already referenced, which says you 18 shall hear all available facts, we thought to be 19 intellectually honest , we should be saying, you know, 20 you really need to go hear all the available facts . 21 And it is consistent not only with your 22 county code, but it ' s also consistent with the state 23 statute that Bruce already read , to you and that I have 24 referenced, because that indicates you can overrule • 25 and it doesn' t go back to the Planning Commission. JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 35 • 1 Whereas, the standard of abuse of discretion 2 and exceed of jurisdiction, you would simply be 3 looking at what they do wrong. And if you find that 4 they did something wrong, you send it back to them. 5 And then you'd have to, as a court would do, you'd 6 have to pronounce what it is they are supposed to do 7 better. In other words, you'd have to do this, that, 8 and the other thing. 9 The abuse of discretion and exceed a 10 jurisdiction criteria comes, as Mr. Foster said, from 11 Rule 106 . 12 Well , when you throw into a regulatory • 13 proceeding a judicially-imposed criteria, which the 14 courts follow, you run into some problems because 15 you ' re comparing apples to oranges . 16 Apples being, court procedures and criteria 17 and the opposite being regulatory. And just as you 18 have said, Mr. Jerke, it ' s tough for a court to decide 19 whether somebody has abused discretion or exceeded 20 jurisdiction. 21 It ' s always a big battle . It ' s expensive for 22 everybody. It ' s time consuming and lawyers go to law 23 school to try to learn that . I 'm not sure we do, but 24 we ' re supposed to learn it especially if we become • 25 judges . JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 36 1 But a typical board of County Commissioners, . 2 especially one that does not have a lawyer on it, they 3 have no idea what can be done . I know Commissioner 4 Garcia is a lawyer. That ' s why I keep looking at him 5 here, because it is hard. 6 And here, there is no reference in your code, 7 in the Home Rule Charter or in thestate statutes 8 anywhere that would say that your criteria today is 9 abuse of discretion or exceeded jurisdiction. It ' s 10 just not in there . 11 I appreciate what Bruce is trying to do. 12 He ' s trying to come up with something so that you • 13 would have some criteria to apply today. 14 We just disagree with What he came up with 15 and we certainly disagree with that suggestion which 16 came from Centex. We believe its should be here, all 17 of the available facts . 18 Thank you. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Garcia. 20 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Mr. Clark, if we could 21 go back to 2-4-10, which I 've been asking about the 22 available facts pertinent to thel incident . That 23 incident language seems kind of awkward to me . Have 24 you seen that before? • 25 MR. CLARK: To be honest with you, I 've not JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 37 1 seen per the incident or pertinent to the incident in • 2 other county codes, to be honest with you. It ' s just 3 usually, you just hear all available facts . And 4 that ' s the same thing. 5 I 've been involved in boards . You just hear 6 the story again. So that language, I must admit is 7 different . But I don' t frankly subscribe any 8 different meaning to that than I do when I answered 9 your question earlier, which to me, that ' s the 10 application. 11 And that ' s because you! have acted as a Board 12 of Appeals on a lot of different things and in writing 13 this, your founders and framers' needed to cover a lot • 14 of different things . 15 And I think they just Used pertinent to the 16 incident to describe all of the various things that 17 you might have to hear appeals On. 18 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: Thank you. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions for Mr. 20 Clark right now? Okay, process-wise, I believe that 21 we had Mr. Clark start . We had Mr. Foster give his 22 presentation. Mr. Clark was given some rebuttal time . 23 We 've also had some quality time with our 24 lawyer asking him questions as well . Process-wise, 25 Bruce, where are we? Do we need to come back now to • JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 38 . 1 the Board to discuss this question of full blown or 2 relatively narrow? 3 MR. BARKER: I think you heard arguments on 4 both sides very ably argued. And so as a result, I 'm 5 not certain that there is anything more that you need 6 to hear on that issue . You may want to go ahead and 7 discuss and then make a determination. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So if any of you have 9 great pearls of wisdom, this is the time . 10 Commissioner Long. 11 COMMISSIONER LONG: It ' s not a pearl . It 12 looks more like the oyster itself . Just for • 13 discussion purposes, I 'm interested in the outcome . 14 We represent the peopl in the final outcome 15 and I 'm seeing unclarity between statute and Home Rule 16 Charter and chicken and egg and all those kinds of 17 things, but to me the people that we represent, you 18 know, the citizens that don ' t know anything about 19 this, don' t know we ' re having this hearing, but 20 they' re interested in the outcome because that ' s going 21 to make a difference in their lives and impact them. 22 They' re not interested as much in the 23 minutiae or the sausage (?) of the unclarity between 24 the two. 25 They' re interested in the outcome and I think • JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 39 1 from my perspective, and I 'm not thinking legally • 2 here, but I 'm trying to think common sense and 3 sometimes that steps outside of the legal realm as far 4 as definitions and those things go, but for me, the 5 people deserve to hear as much as needs to be heard in 6 order for a prudent decision to be made in 7 representing them. 8 I don' t know how we do that necessarily in 9 this piece because of the unclarity, and I don' t want 10 us to get caught up in the final decision that doesn' t 11 represent a good, prudent decision that ' s going to 12 represent an outcome that is going to negatively 13 impact the people in the future . • 14 I 'm not real sure what I 'm saying in that 15 respect, but that ' s where I 'm lrhading. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that makes some sense 17 to speak in those terms . And we wouldn' t want to be 18 accused of acting like (inaudible) that are out 19 creating law. We always hear about them and we don' t 20 much like that kind of thing, that people need to 21 follow statute as much as possible and our statute, 22 our code within the county as much as possible, but 23 you always look towards intent . 24 As a former legislator, you know, we try to 25 establish legislative intent . To me, when I look at • NNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 40 1 (inaudible) ' s intent, and I 've already given this as 2 the answer, that ' s why we ' re hearing this at this 3 point is that , yes, we should be the proper venue to 4 go ahead and hear this at some level . Now the 5 question is how much do we hear? 6 And I don' t know why we wouldn ' t want to be, 7 I guess, more of a fully-formed body -- fully informed 8 on the issues with respect to this case . 9 So, I guess, I lean pretty heavily towards 10 wanting to go ahead and have a regular full-blown 11 hearing much as we would have on every other planning 12 case that we have . 13 I lean pretty strongly in that direction • 14 because I think it ' s in the interest of good 15 government to be more fully informed. 16 Plus, I think it may well lend itself to a 17 decision that we ' re comfortable in making and used to 18 making, either up or down on that . 19 The other questions with respect to trying to 20 go ahead and rule on whether or not our own Planning 21 Commission was inept in some way or inaccurate in some 22 way or deficient in some way, boy, they' re just 23 reaching out there trying to find things that I don' t 24 know how you find those things out there . 25 I 'm totally uncomfortable with that . I don' t • JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 41 1 know that I have any belief and I think we even heard • 2 from Mr. Clark that that can be fairly difficult in 3 true course of law in 106 action. 4 So, I lean pretty strongly towards having a 5 regular full-blown hearing with all due respect to 6 what our own counselor suggested on it . 7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: A question in 8 reference to that, because it ' s kind of two pieces, if 9 it ' s full blown or not, but then making the - - the 10 legal part for me is if we heard the full-blown piece 11 and voted up or down, does that mean we vote up and 12 down to send it back to the Planning Commission or is . 13 the determination made here in order to go with law 14 and -- 15 MR. BARKER: I think what Commissioner Jerke 16 is suggesting is you do it just like you do with your 17 normal hearings . You hear everything, all the 18 evidence again, and you make a determination, but 19 that ' s the final determination. 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And I know everything 21 is always challengeable in court . Which one is the 22 least challengeable is where I 'm going to that 23 respect . And not necessarily that ' s where I would go 24 because, again, it ' s the intent that ' s making sure • 25 that we represent the people and being able to hear JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO.2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 42 1 what needs to be heard. 41 2 THE CHAIRMAN: The least challengeable is to 3 not ever hear anything ever and not even run for 4 office . 5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I 'm not suggesting 6 that . I 'm just curious . 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Garcia. 8 COMMISSIONER GARCIA: I would like to say 9 that that was probably the best pearl of wisdom we 've 10 heard today, make no decision and not run for 11 office . 12 Nonetheless, we have already run for office • 13 and won and we are presented with this issue today. 14 To first speak to the point of standards and 15 appeals and what have you, I do have a bit of a 16 background in my practice of doing that . 17 And it speaks against my nature and my 18 training to consider something de novo. So what we 19 have to do is take a look at what our rules speak to 20 on the appeals process . 21 In my background we had very detailed rules 22 that we applied to look at appeals and what facts were 23 to be allowed in and quite a bit of case law as well 24 to consider. • 25 And also, it gives ammunition to both sides JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 43 • 1 to be able to argue to bring something in or not . We 2 do not have that in this case. 3 So, I 've reviewed in considering Section 4 2-4-10 , which is our hearing appeals process, and 5 those are the questions I was asking of both attorneys 6 that my opinion is 2-4-10 (d) is very different in the 7 sense of saying that the Board of County Commissioners 8 shall hear all the available facts pertinent to the 9 incident . 10 We have two parties here today. One 11 indicates that the incident is :the entirety of the 12 application and the entirety of the process . • 13 We have another party saying the incident is 14 the decision itself, very specific, that we are to 15 review. 16 And, Commissioner Jerke, you talked about the 17 importance of legislative intent and this would have 18 been something that would have been interesting here 19 because the pertinent to the incident is language that 20 I 'm not used to seeing and not able to immediately 21 discern specifically what the framers intended when 22 they wrote that . 23 So, I 'm left to think how would -- and here 24 we enter into this activist ' s judge mode in trying to • 25 interpret this and how do we do so liberally or very JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 44 • 1 conservatively and strictly? And we 've been presented 2 a strict construction, I believe, of this by our 3 County Attorney. 4 The interpretation that I can potentially see 5 here is that if you wanted to say that the Board of 6 County Commissioners on an appeal was to hear the 7 facts presented at hearing, you would say so. 8 That would be clear and that would be 9 concise . If we were to review strictly the facts that 10 were presented at the Planning Commission hearing, 11 they could have told us that . 12 I see here the available facts pertinent to 13 the incident . This language is' very open -- very open 14 for interpretation. It is likely that they intended 15 for the possibility of the de novo review. 16 Like I say, that screams against my 17 experience, but I 'm drawn to that conclusion based on 18 the awkward writing of it when a more easily written 19 statement could have been, here are the facts 20 presented at the hearing. 21 I think we all would understand what that 22 meant, and if it said that, we would have that 23 necessary defining point . 24 So the pertinent to the incident, which I 've • 25 been wrestling around with trying to define the NNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 45 1 incident, I instead come back to the idea that it ' s 2 somehow related to just presenting the -- hear the 3 available facts and the pertinent to the incident is 4 not necessarily defining any particular incident, 5 because it would have been more clear and easy to 6 write the particular incident, which for the record, I 7 would have written it as the incident meaning the 8 facts the decision was based upon. 9 Clear as mud, but I know what I 'm saying. 10 The record understands . 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Masden. 12 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Thank you. Listening 13 to that, maybe you, being a recovering attorney, and 41, 14 saying that it ' s as clear as mud, maybe it was written 15 that way for a purpose as some attorneys do, I hear, 16 anyway. 17 So I would look upon this as -- the way there 18 seems like there is confliction with state statute in 19 our Home Rule charter, that we would move on and hear 20 this as we normally do, as a hearing, and have the 21 facts presented. And we do our normal ruling like we 22 do, vote it up or down, and move on from there . So 23 that ' s what I would like to see. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Well , it sounds like we talked • 25 about it far enough. It sounds like we need to have a JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 46 • 1 motion and see what the motion does . And then we ' ll 2 see what we do from there . 3 Would anyone like to conjure up a motion that 4 would potentially reflect what I believe that we ' re 5 maybe hearing from a majority of the members here? 6 Commissioner Masden. 7 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Well , Mr. Chairman, I 8 can try here . I would move to set a hearing on a site 9 specific development plan, I guess, by Special Review 10 Permit , 1629, for a Major Facility of a Public Utility 11 or a Public Agency, Electrical Substation, subject to 12 the provisions of Section 23-4-420 in the A, 13 Agricultural Zone District , A. pale Slater Trust • 14 B/United Power Inc . , located north of and adjacent to 15 County Road 28 and west of -- adjacent to County Road 16 7 for a date to be determined that we have a normal 17 land use hearing on a facility of this nature . 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Counselpr, does he need to 19 include any language that suggests or clearly states 20 how much information we want to hear, or is it just 21 the land use case says it all, but that we would be 22 hearing a full-blown case? 23 MR. BARKER: I think what you may want to 24 describe is what you mean by a normal land use case . • 25 And maybe I can summarize, and you can correct me if NNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 47 • 1 I 'm wrong, but I think what you want to do is hear it 2 just like you do with all land use cases . Except in 3 this instance, it ' s not coming to you with a 4 recommendation from the Planning Commission, but they 5 made a determination. 6 But what you will hear is all the facts 7 presented. So you'd hear facts from both the 8 applicant . You would hear testimony from anyone in 9 opposition. You would hear testimony from the 10 applicant or anyone who is in favor of the 11 application. 12 You ' d also take any written evidence that • 13 might come in. You would also consider the Planning 14 Commission record that is already there and anyone who 15 would want to testify I suppose could refer to that 16 record as it exists right now too. 17 But you would be taking new evidence, having 18 in essence a hearing de novo is the terminology, a new 19 hearing to hear all evidence . 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that your intention? 21 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Yes, that ' s basically 22 what I 'm stating or thought I was . 23 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to make sure that 24 what you' re saying is what ' s being understood as well . . 25 Is there a second for the motion? .NNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 48 • 1 COMMISSIONER LONG: Second. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: It ' s been moved by 3 Commissioner Masden, second by Commissioner Long. And 4 we do need to come up with a date in the motion. We 5 need to hear from the parties what Wednesday out in 6 the future would make sense . 7 MR. BARKER: Esther may have a date . 8 THE CLERK: June 25th is the earliest 9 possible . 10 THE CHAIRMAN: That provides for all suitable 11 notification? 12 THE CLERK: If I send the notice this Friday 13 for publication next Friday, yes . • 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Does that June 25th work? 15 MR. CLARK: It does work for United Power and 16 the applicant . 17 THE CHAIRMAN: It works for both parties . 18 It ' s been moved by Commissioner Masden, second by 19 Commissioner Long to have a regular Land Use hearing 20 on this case on June 25th, 10 : 00 . 21 Any further discussion? 22 COMMISSIONER LONG: Just a final comment , 23 this process best represents the people . It gives 24 opportunity for anybody and everybody to be able to • 25 submit comments, either support, opposition, new JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 49 1 facts, to be able to get down to the basic final • 2 decision that best represents the outcome for the 3 people . 4 THE CHAIRMAN: I would certainly concur with 5 that . That ' s my belief in that and that ' s why I ' ll be 6 voting for it as well . 7 Why don' t we have a roll call vote on that at 8 this time? 9 (Roll call vote . Garcia, aye, Long, yes, 10 Rademacher, excused, Masden, aye, Jerke, aye . ) 11 THE CHAIRMAN: That motion passes 4 to 0 . 12 (The hearing was concluded. ) 13 • 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 • 25 JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A 1 REPORTER ' S CERTIFICATE • 3 STATE OF COLORADO ss . 4 COUNTY OF ADAMS 5 I , Geneva T. Hansen, do hereby certify that I am a Professional Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public 6 within the State of Colorado. 7 I further certify that the foregoing transcript constitutes a true and correct transcript 8 to the best of my ability to hear and understand the audiotaped recording. 9 I further certify that I am not related to, 10 employed by, nor of counsel for any of the parties or attorneys herein, nor otherwise interested in the 11 result of the within action. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my 0/\-- 13 signature and seal this O day of 14 2008 . 15 My commission expires 11-18-11 16 17 Geneva T. Hansen 19 Nor,,4Rr?Z 20 Nom; �! •O 21 c` •...... . 'pai 22 23 24 • 25 WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 1 A Agency 2:15 46:11 1:10 Assistant 27:21 20:5 23:10 44:17 bility 8:24 20:20 ago 2:18 20:24 appeared 4:25 attendance 31:20 45:8 50:8 agree 15:25 26:22 appears 5:5 32:19 attorney 1:15 19:21 basic 13:6 49:1 able 7:1,18 21:14 28:15 appellate 10:8 15:3 27:19,21 28:2 basically 7:7 11:23 32:12 41:25 43:1 agreement23:14 25:16 27:25 28:12 44:3 45:13 27:6,14 30:10 43:20 48:24 49:1 Agricultural 11:4 apples 35:15,16 attorneys 3:23 4:18 32:20,24 47:21 ably 38:4 46:13 applicant 18:18,23 26:12 33:15 43:5 battle 35:21 absent 3:15 ahead 2:25 5:20,25 19:10 23:23 24:24 45:15 50:10 belief 41:1 49:5 abundantly 22:3 7:18 8:10,15 9:4 47:8,10 48:16 audiotaped 2:1 believe 7:2,17 abuse 14:7 15:19 9:20 11:24 19:18 application 13:25 authority 21:18,25 12:19 14:2,9 16:5,9 34:5 35:1,9 27:15 38:6 40:4 22:21 37:10 43:12 27:24 33:16 15:16 16:20 36:16 36:9 40:10,20 47:11 authorization 37:20 44:2 46:4 abused 11:1 31:4 allow 5:1,2,23,24 applied 24:14 14:25 29:4 best42:9 48:23 33:7,16 35:19 6:4 42:22 available 13:10,18 49:2 50:8 accept 7:13 9:8,12 allowed 16:23 apply 12:15 15:6 13:24 14:5 16:12 bet 19:20 9:21 42:23 36:13 18:3,7 22:19 23:3 better 35:7 acceptance 19:22 allowing 5:19 18:15 appointed 26:19 23:4,11,15,17,18 bids 19:22 accepted 20:1,15 21:3 appreciate 36:11 34:18,20 36:17,22 big 35:21 20:16,20 22:12 allows 5:6 6:21 appropriate 2:9,11 37:3 43:8 44:12 bit 9:16 25:3 26:10 23:19 30:23 4:21 11:18 19:4 45:3 42:15,23 accommodated alluded 7:11 12:17 19:14,23,24 24:4 awkward 23:25 blown 38:1 41:9 21:2 alternate 18:25 24:14 36:23 44:18 board 1:3 3:11,13 ccomplished21:2 19:11 approval21:11 aye49:9,10,10 3:22 5:4,11 6:7,25 cord 15:12 ammunition 42:25 24:1 a.m 1:4 2:2 9:12,21 10:20,23 accused 39:18 analysis 16:7 approve 8:24 10:23 11:6 12:25 act 12:25 15:8,15 answer40:2 April 10:20 33:5 B -- 13:9 14:21,24 20:4 21:1,16,19 answered 37:8 arbitrary 23:9 B 2:15 11:4 14:19 15:11 21:24 23:20 acted 37:11 anybody 18:17 area 17:2 28:18 24:18 26:13 27:9 acting 39:18 48:24 argue 19:13 43:1 back 4:19 5:14,19 28:20,21 29:6,7 action 5:3 41:3 anyway 4:9 31:8 argued 15:5 22:10 15:21,24 16:3 31:16 36:1 37:11 50:11 45:16 38:4 24:2526:13,15,20 38:143:744:5 is26:22 27:13,18,19 activist's 43:24 appea12:5,12 3:20 arguing 12:10,12 boards 34:14 37:5 ADAMS 50:4 3:25 4:7 5:2 7:1 20:18 23:24 33:8 30:20 32:8 33:23 body 15:3 27:25 additional 11:9 7:14 9:8,13 10:7 argument 11:7,15 34:25 35:4 36:21 28:12 29:8,11 address 22:24 10:24 13:3 19:25 17:20,21 19:1 37:25 41:12 45:1 40:7 addressing 12:14 20:2,16,17,20 21:12 22:15,24 background 42:16 bottom32:24 adjacent 46:14,15 23:20 28:1,12 24:3 42:21 boy 40:22 admit 37:6 30:10,11,21 44:6 arguments 2:5 3:17 balancing 20:4 breadth 22:11 advantage 34:8 appealable 5:11 6:6 3:24 20:5 34:5 21:1,16,19 brief 12:16 advice 10:18 6:22 38:3 bar24:6,8,17 briefly 12:17 advise 7:24 appealed 3:13 arose 30:19 Barker 1:15 2:10 briefs 11:8,15 advisement 8:6 30:16 Article 15:12,13 3:9 4:10 7:6,9,13 bring 43:1 affirmative 9:4 appeals 12:24 13:1 asked 13:21 32:1 8:6 10:19 11:24 Bruce 1:15 6:23 31:22 15:11 22:11 30:23 asking 24:16 36:21 17:18 26:8 33:3 7:24 8:5,16 10:14 affixed 50:12 37:12,17 42:15,20 37:24 43:5 38:3 41:15 46:23 12:16 25:3,10 .fterward 25:9 42:22 43:4 asserted 16:9 48:7 32:16 34:23 36:11 APPEARANCES Assessor 17:17 based 10:16 11:8 37:25 JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO.2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 2 ruce's 16:7 chance 18:5,24 45:1 47:13 48:4 44:6 counselor 41:6 wilding 29:3 25:7 comes 25:21 27:7 Commission's 29:9 46:18 buying 32:3 change 24:7 35:10 29:10 30:7,15 counties 15:9,9 B/United 46:14 charge 14:24 comfortable 25:4 committed 32:11 26:17 charter 5:9,10,19 32:14 40:17 common 39:2 county 1:3,15 5:4 C 5:20,22 6:21 20:7 coming 11:11 12:18 communicate 28:19 6:20 12:20 13:10 C30:1 20:14 27:1,1,3,6 47:3 comparing 35:15 14:21 15:6 17:11 call 9:18,20 49:7,9 27:12 28:4 36:7 comment 34:1 compelling 21:13 17:16,16 19:21 called 12:24 38:16 45:19 48:22 complaint 13:5,6 21:24 23:20 24:6 calling6:6 chicken 38:16 comments 18:16 complete23:13 27:9,19,21 28:2 calls 5:9,10 chime 33:22 48:25 concerning 18:6 28:20 29:6,17,20 capricious 23:9 choose 8:14 commission 2:6,13 concerns 14:14 29:21 30:11,22 case 25:14,21 27:9 citizens 38:18 2:22 4:21 5:3,11 18:24 34:14,16,22 36:1 30:3 32:12 33:1 City 29:19,22 6:5,20 10:25 concise 44:9 37:2 39:22 43:7 40:8,12 42:23 clarify 22:9 11:11 12:13 14:8 concluded 49:12 44:3,6 46:15,15 43:2 46:21,22,24 clarity 25:3,12 14:17 15:11,22 conclusion 28:1 50:4 48:20 Clark 1:18 8:12,13 16:1,4,13,14 20:3 44:17 course 25:22 41:3 cases 25:20,23 11:19,21,25 12:2 21:6,9,15,24 22:5 conclusions 28:2 court 6:10 35:5,16 31:12,12 47:2 12:4,5 18:2,11 22:6 23:2,3,5,12 concur49:4 35:18 41:21 cast 3:5 19:13 20:18 21:3 23:22 24:2,9,12 condemnation 17:1 courts 25:17 35:14 caught 39:10 22:10,18,22 24:16 25:15,20,24 27:4 conflict 27:12 31:9 cover 37:13 Centex 1:17 10:4 25:5,8,18 26:16 27:8,15,24 28:9 conflicting 31:7 create 5:20 15:4 17:6,12 18:8 28:15 32:7 33:8 28:17,19 29:7 confliction 45:18 created 5:19 "P36:16 33:23,25 34:2,3 30:5,6,8,13,17 confused 22:9 creating 39:19 ertain 2:20 21:25 36:20,25 37:20,21 31:2,16 32:11,21 confusion 21:22 criteria 3:21,25 4:4 26:17 38:5 37:22 41:2 48:15 32:22 33:1,6,16 conjure 31:23 46:3 8:19 10:17,23 certainly6:13 Clark's 22:20 34:25 40:21 41:12 conservatively 44:1 11:16,25 12:3,14 36:15 49:4 clear 21:23 22:1,3 44:1047:4,14 consider4:25 42:18 12:19 14:2 16:10 CERTIFICATE 34:9 44:8 45:5,9 50:14 42:24 47:13 17:22 18:1,10 50:1 45:14 commissioner 1:10 considering 43:3 19:6,7,7,9,18,19 certify 50:5,7,9 cleared 2:21 7:15 8:21,23 9:6,7 consistent 20:21 20:18 30:24 33:5 Chair9:16 clearly46:19 9:9,11,11,14,15 24:2 30:25 34:21 34:5 35:10,13,16 Chairman 1:10 2:3 clears 9:1 13:20 22:7,23 34:22 36:8,13 2:24 4:8,11 7:8,10 Clerk 1:15 48:8,12 24:3 25:23 31:13 constitutes 50:7 curious 42:6 7:16 8:16 9:1,6,7 client 34:11 32:17,18 33:9,24 construction 14:25 9:10,19,25 10:13 close 6:18 32:2 36:3,19,20 37:18 16:2 44:2 D --- 11:22 12:2 17:25 closest 6:8 38:10,11 41:15 consuming 35:22 D 1:12 18:11 19:5,16 code 12:20,21,23 42:7,8 43:16 continue 8:10 10:11 Dale 2:15 11:4 25:2,6,10 31:6 14:3 21:22 26:11 45:11,12 46:6,7 24:7 46:13 33:12 34:2 36:19 28:7 29:14 31:7 47:21 48:1,3,3,18 contrary 5:24 date 13:2 46:16 37:19 38:8 39:16 34:13,17,22 36:6 48:19,22 14:10 48:4,7 42:2,7 45:11,24 39:22 commissioners 1:3 contravened 28:4 David 1:13,17 10:3 46:7,18 47:20,23 codes 37:2 1:11 5:4,12 6:7 correct 7:5,9 8:21 day 8:10 16:16,20 48:2,10,14,17 colleagues 33:22 7:1 13:10 14:21 11:16 15:17 22:22 50:13 49:4,11 Colorado 50:3,6 16:15 21:25 23:21 24:14 26:16 46:25 days 13:2,4 allengeable come 25:25 30:25 27:10 28:20 29:6 50:7 de 11:12 28:23 41:21,22 42:2 31:5 36:12 37:25 34:14 36:1 43:7 counse12:9 50:10 42:18 44:15 47:18 JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 3 dealing 28:7 3:11 duly 10:13 evidenced 18:3 faster 34:10 eats 27:4 determine 10:23 exact 15:13 fault 32:22 debate 19:3 17:25 20:21 21:7 E -- exactly 19:10 favor 47:10 debating4:19 24:18 33:15,18 E 1:13 example29:19 fee118:17,22 decide 7:10 14:6 determined 46:16 earlier 37:9 exceed 35:2,9 figured 29:16 15:3 34:7 35:18 development2:6 earliest48:8 exceeded 10:25 file 13:3,5 deciders 15:25 11:2 46:9 early 27:18 14:8 15:20 16:5 final 15:2,24 20:11 deciding 3:6 dialogue 18:15 easily 44:18 16:10 23:10 33:6 21:9 22:6 23:11 decision 4:6,24 Dick 8:12 12:5 easy 45:5 35:19 36:9 24:9,12 26:1 6:16,17 7:8 10:8 dictates 4:4 educated 33:14,21 excused 1:13 9:24 38:14 39:10 41:19 13:2 15:17 20:2 difference 38:21 effect 8:8 9:5 49:10 48:22 49:1 20:14,16,17,21 different 20:17 egg 38:16 executives 12:8 financing 29:4,23 21:9,1422:14 33:9 37:7,8,12,14 either28:21 40;18 exhaust 17:1 find 19:1 31:10 23:1,9 24:1,11,15 43:6 48:25 exists 47:16 32:21 35:3 40:23 26:1 30:12 39:6 difficult 41:2 elected 26:18,1$ expensive 35:21 40:24 39:10,11 40:17 difficulty 26:11 election 6:13 experience 31:14 finder 23:18,20,21 42:10 43:14 45:8 direction 40:13 electric 30:2 44:17 24:1 49:2 directly 6:3 Electrical 46:11 expires 50:14 finding 24:18 decisions 5:11,23 disagree 16:8,8 element 17:23 extend 34:6 finish 33:25 5:25 6:6,18 15:11 36:14,15 embarrassing 19:1 extensive 20:24 firm 8:13 12:7 15:11 31:15 32:22 disagreements employed 50:10 first 2:9,18 3:12 4:6 decision-maker 16:17,19 enjoyable 4:18 F _- 4:20 8:12 9:13 20:11 22:6 23:11 disappoint 10:5 enter 43:24 F1:12 10:19 11:19 12:1 •24:10,13 disapproval 14:22 entire 14:23 29:12 faced 29:2 18:1 22:16 25:24 deficient 40:22 28:19 29:9,10,17 30:9 facility 2:14 14:16 34:3 42:14 define 44:25 29:21 30:7,20 entirety 43:11,12 24:1 46:10,17 five 8:10 16:16,17 defining 44:23 45:4 disapprove 14:18 entity 30:3 fact 17:24 21:11 31:21 definitions 39:4 discern 32:10 43:21 especially 6:2 16:11 23:18,20,21,25 folks 7:25 8:4 24:23 denial 2:6,13 31:17 discretion 11:1 35:24 36:2 24:17 31:11 33:8 follow 25:18 26:21 Denver 8:14 14:7 15:19 16:5,9 Esq 1:17,18 facts 13:6,11,18,24 28:5 30:14 35:14 deny 6:25 7:4,12 31:4 33:7,17 34:6 essence 2:11 11:6 14:5 16:12 17:19 39:21 8:24 35:1,9,19 36:9 47:18 17:22 18:3,6,8 following 1:17 2:1 denying 11:1 discuss 19:11 22:11 establish 39:25 22:12,17,17,19 19:17 31:19 Department 1:16 38:1,7 established 8:19 23:2,4,16,17,17 foregoing 50:7 depending 4:3 discussed 3:9 14:11 10:1 23:25 24:14,19,20 foreign 32:9 describe 37:16 discussion 3:22 establishes 12:23 25:1 34:15,18,20 form 5:20,22,25 6:2 46:24 9:13,19 20:10,24 establishment 36:17,22 37:3 6:5 26:19 deserve 39:5 22:14 38:13 48:21 10:16 42:22 43:8 44:7,9 former 17:16 39:24 detail 14:12 discussions 34:10 estate 17:15 44:12,19 45:3,8 forth 4:19 12:20 detailed 42:21 distance2:20 Esther 1:15 7:21 45:21 47:6,7 49:1 14:3 26:14,17 determination 3:18 District 11:4 46:13 48:7 fail 7:6,22 forward 4:1 15:3 3:19 7:7 21:18 docket 1:5 2:4 estimation 24:5,'8 failed 7:3 17:9 34:4 23:5,7 27:17 doing 11:12 21:20 everybody 12:9 fair 26:6 Foster 1:17 10:3,3 28:10 30:16 31:1 32:1 42:16 22:4 35:22 48:24 fairly 41:2 11:20 12:1 18:13 38:7 41:13,18,19 Douglas 1:13 evidence 11:9,13 fa1129:5 18:14 19:9,20 47:5 drawn 44:17 21:4,8 23:8,10 far 25:19 39:3 22:8,23 23:1 eterminations due41:5 41:18 47:12,17,19 45:25 25:13 26:3 35:10 I JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 4 37:21 26:21,25 27:13 7:18 8:21 11:12 Homes 1:17 10:4 input4:12 unders5:18 28:6 33:23,25 11:19,19,24 12:1 15:4 17:13 18:8 instance 23:19 47:3 37:13 34:4,20,25 35:22 13:10,12,13,14,15 honest 34:19 36:25 intellectually 34:19 four 6:13 8:1,7 10:1 36:21 38:6 39:4 13:18 14:5 18:7 37:2 intended 43:21 31:18 40:4,10,20 41:13 22:19 25:14,20,21 humble 24:8 44:14 framers 27:3 37:13 41:23 31:2,12,12 32:6,7 hundred 25:22 intent 39:23,25 43:21 goes 15:3 27:7,15 32:20 33:24 34:18 ----- 40:1 41:24 43:17 frankly 15:7 34:8 28:9,22 34:20 37:3,5,17 - -I- -- intention 47:20 37:7 going 2:4 7:10,11 38:6 39:5,19 40:4 idea 33:18,20 36:3 interest 31:24 Friday48:12,13 8:2 11:10 12:10 40:541:17,25 45:1 40:14 FTR2:1 12:12,17 13:21,22 42:3 43:8 44:6 idea19:5 interested 38:13,20 fu1138:1 41:9 14:12 25:2,6 45:2,15,19 46:20 ideals 6:16 38:22,25 50:10 fully 40:7,15 26:13,20 29:20 47:1,6,7,8,9,19 identified 20:22 interesting 43:18 fully-formed 40:7 33:14 38:20 39:11 48:5 50:8 27:11 interpret 22:20 full-blown 3:3 21:3 39:12 41:22 heard 5:1 7:2 17:12 Identify 10:2 43:25 31:12 32:5,12 good 2:24 7:25 17:13 22:12 25:24 immediately 43:20 interpretation 40:10 41:5,10 18:14 26:8 31:25 32:21 38:3 39:5 impact 38:21 39:13 16:18 44:4,14 46:22 39:11 40:14 41:1,10 42:1,10 implied 9:3 interpreted 30:10 further 8:3 9:19 govern 29:5 hearing 2:4,5,12,18 import 18:2 introduce 23:25 10:22 15:18 34:1 governance 5:25 3:3,24 4:3,4 8119 importance 43:17 introduced 25:1 48:21 50:7,9 6:2,5 10:16 11:9,12,12 important4:24 involved 17:15 37:5 future 39:13 48:6 government 5:15 13:17 16:16 18:3 6:15 13:8 16:11 issue 3:12,13,20 9:2 5:18,21,22 6:8 21:3 22:5,8 28:8 inaccurate 40:21 10:21 11:14,18,20 • G -------- -- 26:19,24 29:22 28:23 32:5,12 inappropriately 11:25 12:14 25:1 gain 25:11 31:25 40:15 34:15 38:19 40:2 16:21 26:14,20 27:11,15 game 10:11 grant 10:24 40:11 41:5 43:4 inaudible 8:15 10:9 38:6 42:13 Garcia 1:12 7:15 great4:17 14:12 44:7,10,20 45:20 10:12 18:21 19:4 issues 19:15 40:8 7:20 9:14,15,23 38:9 46:5,8,17,22 21:12 24:20,23 item4:3 13:21 22:7,23 Greeley 15:10 47:18,19 48:19 39:18 40:1 23:13 33:24 36:4 29:19 49:12 incident 22:20,21 J- 36:19,20 37:18 ground 29:2 hearings 41:17 23:1 36:22,23 January 22:5 24:25 42:7,8 49:9 guess 8:17 31:10 hears 27:15 28:12 37:1,1,16 43:9,11 30:20 Geneva 50:5,16 33:14 40:7,9 46:9 28:17 43:13,19 44:13,24 Jerke 1:10 9:24 Gesick 1:15 heart 26:23 45:1,3,4,6,7 19:20 33:10 35:18 getting 17:18 H heavily 40:9 include 46:19 41:15 43:16 49:10 gist 32:19 H 1:10 help 6:24 22:9 including 4:19 15:9 Johnson 8:13 12:5 give 2:11 8:3 25:6 hand 7:23 helps 25:11 inconsistent 16:3 judge 43:24 26:10 37:21 handled 8:17 15:12 history 26:10 i indicates 13:9 judges 35:25 given 10:8 11:18 16:20,21 HOA 1:17 10:4 14:20 15:10 34:24 judicially-imposed 37:22 40:1 Hansen 50:5,16 holding 10:16 43:11 35:13 gives 42:25 48:23 happened 3:1 Home 5:9,10 15:5,8 individuals 8:7 July 50:13 giving 24:22 16:13 15:9,14 26:16,24 industry 17:15 June 1:4 2:3 48:8 go 2:25 3:25 5:20 happens 7:25 14:18 26:25 27:1,6,11 inept 40:21 48:14,20 5:24 7:18 8:10,14 14:19 28:4 30:22 36:7 information 4:14 jurisdiction 6:25 8:25 9:4,20 11:24 hard 31:23 32:3 38:15 45:19 8:4 9:16 10:15 7:4,12,13 8:18,24 •14:12 15:18 17:9 36:5 homeowners 17:6 32:20 46:20 9:8,12 11:1 14:8 17:24 19:18 26:15 hear4:6,22,23 7:1 18:9 informed 40:7,15 15:20 16:5,10 JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 5 21:10 23:10 27:24 legislator 39:24 Martin 1:16ii, motion 6:25 7:2,3,4 noticed 2:17,22 29:8 31:4 33:6 lend 40:16 Masden 1:12 9:9,11 7:12,17,21,22 notification 48:11 34:6 35:2,10,20 length 4:5 9:24 32:17,18 8:23 9:3,5,8,21,25 notwithstanding 36:9 let's 9:20 18:1 19:6 45:11,12 46:6,7 46:1,1,3 47:25 21:11 level5:15,17 7:19 47:21 48:3,18 48:4 49:11 novo 11:12 28:23 K 22:17 40:4 49:10 move 9:8 18:13 42:18 44:15 47:18 Kay 27:21 liberally 43:25 materials 3:4,16 19:16 45:19,22 keep 6:10 24:24 Liberty 1:17 10:4 matter 12:15 28:12 46:8 Q 36:4 liked 21:5 28:17 31:2 34:12 moved 9:10 24:9 object 10:6,10 keeps 6:8 line 29:20,23 32:24 mean 21:16 41:11 48:2,18 objection 10:12 kicker29:1 lines 29:24 46:24 moving 24:17 objections 18:4 kind 3:6 4:18 6:16 listen 3:15 4:15,18 meaning 11:8 20:10 mud 45:9,14 observation 33:13 7:11 25:16 36:23 listened 23:8 20:11 22:21 28:22 - — -- - -- - - obviously 7:11 39:20 41:8 Listening 45:12 29:9 30:11 37:8 N-- 25:25 32:6 kinds 5:23 6:17 little 17:18 25:3 45:7 name 8:12 12:5 offered 20:5 38:16 26:10 meaningful5:13 narrow38:2 office 42:4,11,12 knew 18:20 22:5 lives 38:21 meant 9:3 44:22 nature 42:17 46:17 official 14:24 29:8 know 4:12 9:16 local 6:10 meeting 1:3 3:1 necessarily 33:19 29:12 16:11,15 20:5 locally 6:18 4:16 16:14 39:8 41:23 45:4 officials 26:18 29:6 26:13,19 31:13 located 46:14 members 31:17 necessary44:23 oftentimes 29:25 33:14 34:19 36:3 locations 18:25 46:5 need 2:8 3:21 7:24 okay 4:11 7:16,23 38:18,18,19 39:8 19:12 membership 14:23 8:3,23 10:15 22:1 8:16 9:10 10:13 39:24 40:6,24 long 1:13 8:22,23 29:12 30:9 32:6 34:20 37:25 18:11,13 25:2,8 •41:1,20 45:9 9:6,7,11,23 19:3 memos 27:19 38:5 39:20 45:25 31:6 32:9 37:20 38:10,11 48:1,3 mention 14:3 46:18 48:4,5 38:8 L 48:19,22 49:9 mentions 22:18 needed 3:10 37:13 once 24:9 land 25:23 27:9 look 5:14 15:19 meshing 20:9 needs 8:17 39:5 ones 18:20 46:17,21,24 47:2 16:12 17:17 28:25 Meyer 12:6 42:1 open 44:13,13 48:19 31:14,24 34:13 Michelle 1:16 negatively 39:12 opinion 16:7 43:6 language 36:23 39:23,25 42:19,22 midst 33:15 neighbors 18:24 opportunity 4:14 37:6 43:19 44:13 45:17 mind 5:22 24:24 never 13:23 10:7,9 19:14 21:6 46:19 looked 19:21 26:25 new 11:12,13 22:14 23:24 24:23 48:24 law 8:13 15:8 26:22 looking 15:20 minds 19:3 24:17 47:17,18 oppose 14:1 28:3,5 29:5 35:22 33:11 35:3 36:4 mine 33:13 48:25 opposed 32:12 39:19 41:3,13 looks 38:12 minute 15:5 nine 16:15 opposite 35:17 42:23 lot4:14 37:12,13 minutiae 38:23 nonelectives 6:10 opposition 6:3 47:9 lawyer 36:2,4 37:24 Lyons 8:13 12:5 misinterpretation norma132:3 41:17 48:25 lawyers 35:22 16:22 45:21 46:16,24 ora12:5 11:7 34:4 lead 6:17 M __.. misreading 15:7 normally 25:19 oranges 35:15 leading4:24 39:15 major2:14 14:16 mistakes 12:13 45:20 order 11:22 39:6 lean 40:9,13 41:4 46:10 31:3 north 46:14 41:13 learn 35:23,24 majority 14:23 mode 43:24 Norton 27:21 ordinances 20:8,13 left 43:23 29:11 30:9 46:5 moment 33:23 Notary 50:5 original 27:2 lega139:3 41:10 making 6:16 31:1 months 20:24 note 31:17 originally 2:22 legally 39:1 40:17,18 41:9,24 moot4:9 noted 10:13 ought 32:1 •egislative 39:25 mandatory 13:15 morning 18:14 19:2 notice 2:19 24:21 outcome 38:13,14 43:17 Mark 12:6 19:21 21:12 24:11 48:12 38:20,25 39:12 I JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 6 a49:2 planning 1:16 2:5 premise 26:23 province 29:5 reasons 28:20 utset 14:4 2:12,22 5:3,10 6:5 prepared 12:2 17:9 provision 12:21,25 rebuttal 11:20 outside 31:3 39:3 6:20 10:25 11:11 19:11 34:4 14:20 27:1 29:13 37:22 overrule 14:22 16:1 12:13 14:7,17 present 1:11,14 30:23 34:16 recallable 6:13 28:21 34:24 15:10,21 16:1,4 8:11 16:16 18:5 provisions 11:3 recognize 18:18 overruled 28:22 16:13,14 20:2 presentation 8:18 26:11 46:12 recollect20:12 29:10,18,22 30:8 21:6,9,14,24 22:4 11:23 17:5 37:22 prudent 39:6,11 recommendation overruling 14:24 22:5 23:2,3,5,12 presented 42:13 public 2:14,15 6:14 27:16 31:5,11 29:16 23:21 24:2,9,12 44:1,7,10,20 27:23 29:2 30:6,8 33:3 47:4 owned 30:3 25:15,20,23 27:4 45:21 47:7 30:12,17 46:10,11 recommended 27:8 oyster 38:12 27:7,15 28:9,16 presenting 17:22 50:5 record 2:9 3:8 9:15 29:10 30:15 31:1 45:2 publication 2:23 10:6,10,14 11:11 P 31:16 32:11,21,22 preserve 10:7 48:13 12:4 20:12 21:8 part 13:9 28:7 33:1,6,16 34:25 pretty 5:13 20:24 purpose 45:15 23:3 24:19 45:6 41:10 40:11,20 41:12 26:8 28:22 40:9 purposes 38:13 45:10 47:14,16 participate 10:11 44:10 47:4,13 40:13 41:4 pursuant 12:24 recording 2:1 50:8 particular 12:11,15 play 10:11 previous 9:3 put 29:13,20 30:18 records 33:19 12:21,25 13:16,25 please 18:17 19:18 primed 32:10 30:24 33:4 recovering 45:13 15:16 17:7 19:21 Plus 40:16 probably 7:24 10:5 — reduced 17:7 21:11 22:24 23:19 point 4:13 7:21 34:8 42:9 4-- reduction 19:12 45:4,6 10:14,18 11:17 problem 28:24 29:1 quality 37:23 refer 47:15 parties 3:17 43:10 12:12 17:11,19 problems 35:14 question 4:17 6:23 reference 36:6 41:8 48:5,17 50:10 31:11 33:13,20 procedure 13:1 8:17 22:8 23:15 referenced 34:17 'party 43:13 40:3 42:14 44:23 14:15 16:19 25:11 28:11 30:19 34:24 pass 9:25 political30:4 procedures 35:16 37:9 38:1 40:5 references 15:15 passed 10:20 27:12 position 13:16,23 proceed 8:2,9 9:2 41:7 referred 28:14 passes 49:11 15:25 16:9 18:9 15:1 16:2 questions 18:11 reflect 46:4 pearl 38:11 42:9 32:25 proceeding 35:13 37:19,24 40:19 reflections 32:16 pearls 38:9 possibilities 6:9 process 3:7 12:24 43:5 regarding 4:4,7 people 1:17 2:19,21 possibility 44:15 13:21 19:23,25 quite 9:15 42:23 10:21 6:12,19 22:1 possible 6:11,19 22:2,11 24:22 quorum 31:21 register 7:22 27:25 32:2 38:14 32:2 39:21,22 25:16,19 26:5 R regular 40:10 41:5 38:17 39:5,13,20 48:9 28:8 42:20 43:4 48:19 41:25 48:23 49:3 potentially 4:8 8:1 43:12 48:23 Rademacher 1:13 regulatory 35:12 Permit 2:13 11:2 44:4 46:4 process-wise 37:20 9:24 49:10 35:17 46:10 raised 11:18 power 1:6,18 2:16 37:24 rehash 9:17 persona133:12 8:9 11:5 12:6,8 Professional50:5 Ranch 1:17 10:4 rehashing 31:7 24:6reaching 40:23 perspective 13:2 14:22 16:1 pronounce 35:6' rehearing 15:22 25:14 31:25 39:1 16:25 17:8,13 proper 7:18 9:12 read 34:12,13,23 rehearse 2:25 3:7 pertinent 22:19 ready 4:11 P 18:5,17,23 19:10 9:21 40:3 related 19:22 45:2 36:22 37:1,15 19:14 21:5 23:24 properly 6:24 rea117:15 39:14 50:9 43:8,19 44:12,24 30:19 34:4 46:14 property 2:20 17:4 really 5:8 6:21 relates 19:23 20:14 45:3 48:15 17:6,12 18:6,25 19:23 24:25 28:3 21:13 phrased 7:15 31:9 34:20 powers 15:8,15 19:12 relatively 38:2 piece 39:9 41:10 realm 39:3 P 17:1 26:17 proposed 14:25 relayed 32:8 ieces 41:8 Power's 11:23 provide 10:14 reason 3:2 4:12 relevant 24:5 Ian 2:6 11:2 46:9 practice 42:16 provides 13:1 48:10 17:7 18:4 relied 23:6 JUNE 4,2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 7 iiily 20:23 24:23 16:6 18:7 19:18 28:14 29:13,25 Special 2:13 11:2 strict 44:2 mand 22:15 26:5 33:2 37:20 30:18 43:3 46:12 18:20 46:9 strictly 30:15 44:1 renders 4:8 47:16 see 25:11 44:4,12 specific 2:6 11:2 44:9 renoticed 13:18 rights 32:11 45:23 46:1,2 14:15 15:23 43:14 strongly 40:13 41:4 reply 11:20 road 8:3 46:15,15 seeing 9:19 38:15 46:9 structure 29:3 Reporter 50:5 Robert 1:12 43:20 specifically 12:20 stuff 5:14,16 REPORTERS roll 9:18,20,23 49:7 seek 25:2 14:20 15:10,15 subdivision 30:4 50:1 49:9 seen 36:24 37:1 27:2 29:14 43:21 subject 11:3 46:11 represent 12:6 room 12:7 22:4 send 15:21,24 35:4 spent 21:19 submission 29:7 26:12 38:14,17 Rothberger 12:5 41:12 48:12 spoke 1:17 30:4 39:11,12 41:25 Rothgerber 8:13 sending 6:9 16:3 ss 50:3 submit 48:25 representation rule 5:9,10 15:5,8,9 sense 39:2,16 43:7 Stan 17:14 submitted 3:17 26:6,9 15:15 20:22 26:16 48:6 standard 16:6 12:16 21:5 Representative 26:24 27:1,1,6,11 Sessions 17:14 23:14 33:9,10 subparagraph 1:16 28:4 30:22 35:11 set 11:7 12:20 14:3 34:5 35:1 14:19 27:14 28:16 representing 10:3 36:7 38:15 40:20 26:17 27:3 46:8 standards 16:18 30:16 39:7 45:19 sets 28:8 17:3,9 18:21 subscribe 37:7 represents 48:23 ruled 33:2 sewer 29:20 20:19,22,25 24:4 subsection 27:5 49:2 rules 31:19 42:19 Shorthand 50:5 24:7,15 42:14 28:24,25 30:1 request 8:8 42:21 show 19:13 34:9 start 16:2 37:21 substation 17:7,17 requests 29:25 ruling 6:20 45:21 side 13:22 17:12,13 starting 2:2 46:11 resolution 10:20 run 35:14 42:3,10 26:4 starts 18:17 substitute 21:18 20:23 33:4 42:12 sides 13:19,24 26:7 state 5:19 13:6 suggest 5:2 17:20 solved 10:22 38:4 42:25 14:10,10,14 15:23 21:1 respect 2:25 8:18 S signature 50:13 20:6 26:22 27:12 suggested 14:5 10:15 16:7 22:2 s 40:1 simply 25:20 32:4 28:3,5 30:14 21:22 41:6 30:2 31:15,20 sausage 38:23 35:2 34:13,15,22 36:7 suggesting 21:4,17 39:15 40:8,19 saw 8:7 sit 19:2 45:18 50:3,6 24:25 25:13,18 41:5,23 saying 11:6,10 16:4 site 2:6 11:2 12:11 stated 22:17 33:10 26:2,3 41:16 42:5 respond 18:24 18:2 22:13 28:5 46:8 statement 22:20 suggestion 36:15 19:15 25:5,7 33:5,19 34:19 sites 17:1 44:19 suggests46:19 response 18:12 39:14 43:7,13 sitting 32:20 states 46:19 suitable 48:10 restated 6:24 45:9,14 47:24 Slater 2:15 11:4' stating 47:22 summarize 12:17 result 16:22 38:4 says 13:1,5,14 46:13 statute 5:6,7,19,24 46:25 50:11 15:23 27:2,14 somebody 35:19 6:4 14:10,11,14 support 13:25 21:8 review 2:13 3:16,17 28:18 29:2 30:1 soon 3:6 15:14,16,23 20:7 48:25 4:14 11:2,10 30:15 34:17 46:21 sorry 18:17,22 27:13 30:14 31:7 suppose2:8 47:15 18:20 20:2,16 school 35:23 sort 4:5 9:2 10:6 34:23 38:15 39:21 supposed 35:6,24 21:10,14 22:3 screams 44:16 26:13,23 29:17 39:21 45:18 supposedly 8:20 43:15 44:9,15 scrutiny 6:14 sought 18:19 statutes 5:1 34:13 sure 3:9 12:9 21:21 46:9 sea150:13 sounds 45:24,25 36:7 24:13 31:8 32:10 reviewed 3:3 22:12 second 2:11 3:19,20 space 29:3 step 8:25 15:18 33:21 35:23 39:14 43:3 4:3,20 9:9,11 speak 25:12 32:15 steps 39:3 41:24 47:23 reviewing 12:15 17:23 47:25 48:1 39:17 42:14,19 stick 19:6,7 33:19 48:3,18 SPEAKER41:7,20 story37:6 T 'chard 1:18 section 12:21 22:10 42:5 Street 8:14 10:4 T 50:5,16 ight4:10 14:15 27:4,5,13 28:6,7 speaks 42:17 strength 12:10 take 16:12 17:17 I JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-3LA WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 8 4ii 28:24 42:19 47:12 19:2 34:18 47:22 undeniably 5:10 14:22 29:11 30:8 21:21 26:12 29:1 aken 9:23 three 10:1 31:17 undergoing 14:15 32:13 41:11 45:22 29:16 32:14 34:10 talk 8:3 10:19 throw 35:12 understand 3:2 49:7,9 37:23 42:9 44:1 22:16 tie 3:14 13:17 14:4 22:2 voted 25:24,24 WHEREOF 50:12 talked 27:22 43:16 time 3:10 8:7 13:20 25:16 31:6,8,9 31:17,18 41:11 William 1:10,12 45:24 14:11 15:4 18:22 44:21 50:8 votes 31:22 wisdom 38:9 42:9 talking 15:14 19:24 28:3 32:3 35:22 understanding voting 7:16,20 49:6 wish 8:9 24:25 22:24 37:22,23 38:9 8:15 22:13 WITNESS 50:12 talks 22:18 49:8 understands 12:9 — W won 42:13 tape 3:16 4:15 50:8 Title 15:12,13 45:10 wade 26:4 word 5:15 6:12 tell 12:3 today 2:3,12 3:18 understood 47:24 wait 15:5 words 11:10 13:15 telling 5:8 26:13 8:9,15 11:8,12 undoubtedly 20:4 waiting 7:7,8 15:2 30:14 35:7 tells 14:19 19:24 32:25 34:4 UNIDENTIFIED want 10:10 17:20 work 13:22 25:17 term 25:22 36:8,13 42:10,13 41:7,20 42:5 17:24 19:2 26:7,9 48:14,15 terminology 47:18 43:10 United 1:6,18 2:15 26:18 32:8,15 works 48:17 terms 20:13,18,19 told 44:11 8:9 11:5,23 12:6,8 33:22 38:6 39:9 wouldn't 6:12 24:7,16 39:17 topic 9:17 13:2 15:25 16:25 39:17 40:6 46:20 31:13,20 39:17 testify47:15 tota11y40:25 17:8,13 18:5,17 46:23 47:1,15,23 40:6 testimony 16:23,24 tough 35:18 18:23 19:10,14 wanted 9:2,4 18:16 wrapping 17:20 47:8,9 training 42:18 21:4 23:23 30:19 23:24 32:7 44:5 wrestling 44:25 Thank 18:14 32:18 transcript 22:3 34:3 48:15 wanting 40:10 write 45:6 34:3 36:18 37:18 50:7,7 use 2:13 6:12 12:20 wasn't 17:8 writing 37:12 44:18 45:12 troublesome 31:10 13:24 14:3 16:25 water 29:24 written 4:14 27:19 erewith 15:1 true 26:20 41:3 18:19 25:23 27:9 way 5:14,17 7:14 44:18 45:7,14 thing 3:19 4:2,5,20 50:7 46:17,21,24 47:2 8:20 10:6 17:24 47:12 5:8 13:8 17:23 Trust 2:15 11:4 48:19 25:12 27:3 29:2 wrong 25:15 26:4 29:24 35:8 37:4 46:13 USR-1629 1:6 2:7 32:4,19 33:1 31:15 35:3,4 47:1 39:20 truth 34:12 usually 37:3 40:21,22,22 45:15 wrongs 32:10 things 4:23 6:15,17 try 14:6 19:6,7 utilities 27:22,23,25 45:17 wrote 27:22 43:22 16:23 31:24 32:4 26:12 31:8 32:21 30:2,6,8,12,17 Wednesday 1:4 37:12,14,16 38:17 33:15 35:23 39:24 utility2:14 14:17 48:5 Y 39:4 40:23,24 46:8 27:7 29:3 30:3,5 weeks 2:18 20:6 Yeah 11:24 17:25 think 2:10,17,24 trying 31:9 36:11 46:10 21:20 25:6 4:24 5:14,17 6:2 36:12 39:2 40:19 utilizing 22:10 Weld 1:3 12:20 year 10:21 6:15,19 7:14 8:6,8 40:23 43:24 44:25 17:11,16 years 6:14 17:16 9:1 11:14 16:24 two 2:18 20:9 21:21 V went 2:19 5:18 25:22 32:15 17:2,19,21 24:5 25:11 26:6 31:18 vague 5:7 17:14 27:18,18 24:21,22,22 25:12 38:24 41:8 43:10 valid 21:12 33:20 Z 26:4,8,9,15,23 type 5:3 22:15 value 18:6,25 19:12 weren't 17:9 Zone46:13 32:1 34:9 37:15 typical36:1 values 17:4,6,12 west 46:15 38:3,25 39:2,16 - various 4:18 37:16 we'll 46:1 40:14,16 41:1,15 U venue 7:18 9:22 we're 2:3,4 8:2 0 49:11 43:23 44:21 46:23 ultimate 31:1 40:3 11:10 12:18 32:1 -- _ 1 47:1 unclarity 38:15,23 versus 32:3 35:24 38:19 40:2 1-a 27:14 thinking 39:1 39:9 volunteer 31:16 40:17 46:4 10:00 48:20 ird 4:2 17:23,23 uncomfortable vote 3:5,6 7:3,6,23 we've 7:23 8:18 10:041:4 hought 16:19 17:5 40:25 8:2 9:3,20 10:1 12:16 20:6,7,7 JUNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9 460 :04:52 2:2 6 20:22 35:11 41:3 11-18-11 50:14 1200 8:14 1629 2:14 11:3 46:10 17th 8:14 10:4 1970s 27:20 1976 5:18 2 2 7:3,3,6,6 8:2,2 2-2 3:14 2-4-10 12:22 22:11 36:21 43:4 2-4-10(d) 13:9 22:18,25 43:6 2008 1:4 2:3 50:13 2008-31.A 1:5 21st 10:21 33:5 23-2-300 28:8 29:14 23-4-420 11:3 46:12 th 48:8,14,20 815:12,13 46:15 3 3 28:25 3-2 7:23 3015:12,13 30-28-110 14:13 27:14 28:15 4 4 1:4 2:3 27:5 49:11 4-4 27:5 6 6013:2,3 621 10:4 7 7 46:16 9 9th 50:13 :00 2:4 i NNE 4, 2008 DOCKET NO. 2008-31.A File contains a CD-ROM with the digital text of the Transcript Please see original in file Town of Mead P.O. Box 626 /WIC\ead 441 Third Street Mead,Colorado 80542-0626 Mend•"A',minima (970)535-4477 Office With a Big Future" (970)535-0831 Fax July 7, 2008 Mr.William Jerke, Chairman Weld County Board of Commissioners 915 10th Street, 3rd Floor P. O. Box 758 Greeley CO 80632 Dear Chairman Jerke: The Board of Trustees for the Town of Mead has directed me to write a letter objecting to the proposed location of the substation for United Power adjacent to the Liberty Ranch Subdivision in the Town of Mead. The Board of Trustees is requesting that the County Board of Commissioners deny the request to site the facility in its proposed location for the following reasons: • The proposed facility does not comply with the Mead Comprehensive Plan which calls for residential uses at this site as well as on all sides of this property. • The proposed facility is incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood. • The proposed facility will have a negative impact on adjacent property values. • The proposed facility will have a negative impact on the future development of adjacent properties in the general vicinity of the proposed substation. • The proposed facility will have a negative impact on the health, safety and welfare of adjacent residents. • The proposed facility will have a negative visual impact on nearby residents. • The owner/developer of the facility cannot mitigate the negative impacts of the facility. • The ownerideveioper has not properly investigated ail reasonable alternatives. On behalf of the residents of Mead the Board of Trustees objects to the proposed location for an electrical substation by United Power. The Board of Trustees urges the Weld County Board of Commissioners to deny the application by United Power for an electrical substation in this location. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Very truly yours, ®� alb ,0Lw- EXHIBIT Dan J. Dean � j Town Manager /� u pS• c9ocv /(45 • July 13, 2008 To: Weld County Board of County Commissioners From: Bill Pollock Liberty Ranch Resident Re: United Power"Slater Substation" Special Use Permit I wish to voice my opposition to allowing a Special Use Permit to United Power for the building of the "Slater Substation."The remainder of this letter outlines my reasons for opposing the building of the substation at the proposed location. Beyond the specific reasons that follow I would hope the Board considers the salient fact that the residents of Liberty Ranch had no knowledge the location adjacent their subdivision had been targeted for a United Power substation. The developer, Centex,also had not been aware of the proposed location by United Power. Our aim was to find a home in a rural area,grow our families among other likeminded people, and hopefully maintain or advance our economic value for the future .... for the future of our children's education and their well-being; for the future of our retirement; for the future of subsequent families; etc. Plain and simple, had we known an electrical substation was being built or even being considered at its current proposed site many of us would not have purchased our homes at Liberty • Ranch. The point is we purchased at Liberty Ranch because of our life goals and are now being forced into an environment we would not have chosen. I ask you to consider our personal position as it pertains to the building of the United Power "Slater Substation" and oppose the Special Use Permit. More specifically there are other reasons. First, as a unit,the entire Liberty Ranch community opposes the proposed site. Further, our local governmental unit, Mead, has voted to not allow the special use permit. It seems a bit strange to me that when individuals and local government agencies voice a united decision it can be dismissed to another, more remote, agency for further consideration. I fully understand and support that processes and practices have been established for fairness ... but fairness cuts both ways when considering the balance of a David and Goliath event ... in this case the resources and where-with-all of United Power against the determination of a small group of residents and a minor governmental agency. Please hear us and Mead. We oppose the current proposed site. The value of our homes will be impacted. We have all heard of the health risks of being close to an electrical substation. I'm not sure whether in fact the latter is valid. I do know however I would not have purchased my home in Liberty Ranch had I been aware a substation was going to be built at the proposed site. From a practical stand point, I also know that were I in the market for a new home I would offer less for a home near a substation than a home absent the site of one. Bottom line .. we have no choice in the devaluing of our homes. We are hoping that by denying the Special Use Permit you give us a choice .. a voice ... in maintaining our value. • United Power explains cost is an issue. In short, moving the site will cost more. We have not heard definitive costs, nor comprehensive explanations concerning the measure of their effort to secure EXHIBIT TI use*fiat= another site.Through the grape vine I've heard that the cost to move the site .5 miles south would run • approximately$250,000.That sounds like quite a number. However, were the cost amortized across kilowatt hours over thousands of homes and thousands of billing periods the figure would probably seem significantly less acute; i.e. is the impact really as bad as United Power says it is? Bottom line, I'm not sure cost is the real issue ... please ask United Power to more clearly explain the impact of the cost upon users more extensively and to include alternative sites in comparison. United Power says it needs a substation in the area. I believe them. Come to Liberty Ranch ... there are miles and miles of open space not adjacent a new and developing community. Is it really necessary United Power build at its proposed site and affect the dreams of the current residents of Liberty Ranch? Have they thoroughly investigated alternative sites? Have they conscientiously considered the wishes of their local constituents? It is unfortunate the Weld County Board of Commissioners must make this decision .... United Power should have accepted its responsibility to meet the needs of its users .. not simply at the universal level, but also at the local level. I'm asking the Board vote to not allow the Special Use Permit and to encourage United Power to re-invigorate its effort to find a location less invasive and further distant from Liberty Ranch. Thank you for considering my position, Bill Pollock and Janet Sage • 13682 Wrangler Way Mead, CO 80542 • Esther Gesick oor: Rob Masden Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:11 AM : Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Substation at the end of our development '' c- Original Message . ::x i.- From: B T [mailto:btbooks@msn.com] .,1 ,, Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:32 PM To: Douglas Rademacher Cc: William Garcia; Dave Long; Rob Masden; Bill Jerke Subject: Substation at the end of our development My husband and I are very concerned about the proposed power station at the end of our development. If you had a choice to buy a home a couple hundred feet from a six acre substation or not - what would you choose? Would you take your family's health into consideration? Would you be worried about property value? Would you worry knowing it would take you longer to sell your home because you lived so near to a substation? awould have never bought a home here if we were told there was a proposed power substation right at the end of our streer. If this does go in our home values will go down Our health would be put at stake It will take a much longer time to sell our home It is not going in the location you have been given - It is going in right at the end of our development United Power told Centex they had sufficient power for our development to be built. why are we the ones that will suffer for all the homes they say they need the substation for now. Please say no tomorrow to United Power's request for a substation right at the end of our development. Thank you, Jeff & Beverly Trippon • EXHIBIT 1j • July 14, 2008 To All Concerned: 1) The health and welfare of the residents of Weld County,with which you duly elected commissioners are charged, is at risk. This includes our economic welfare as well as possible health welfare. There are many statements which report that there are no health effects from exposure to Electro Magnetic Frequency, also known as EMF. However,there are just as many articles that report serious side effects,the most common being leukemia in children,as well as other effects. While the evidence is inconclusive on both parts, we do not think it is a wise choice for you to possibly put us as well as our children at risk. 2) CHOICE -- On the economic side,this sub station would more than likely have a negative impact on our housing values. In an already slumping housing market,this is not acceptable. Many of the families in Liberty Ranch have scrimped and saved, and put their life savings into their homes in this community. Many are dual income families, scraping to get by, and any equity they may have built up in their homes would be erased by a negative impact to this community. While people may find realtors to show that there would be no impact to housing values, other realtors would say there would be. Again, the evidence is inconclusive for both sides. 3) This sub station,while this community would benefit from it, does not appear to • be critical to this community. There are meeting minutes in which United Power has stated to Centex that they had enough power to supply this community. If you look at the proposed development around Liberty Ranch, Foster Creek with roughly 1700 homes has been approved. Also, Life Bridge has been approved which is to the south west of our community has an expected housing of approximately 1,600—these are developments causing a strain on the electrical infrastructure that United Power currently has in place. We are small community where approximately 500 could be built. 4) We have been informed that none of the other landowners in this area want to sell a parcel of land to United Power for this substation. We would suggest to you that these folks also are concerned with the ability to sell their property with this substation sitting on or adjacent to it. The previously mentioned arguments pertaining to health concerns and economic concerns are real,and even though they are inconclusive,we ask what each one of you would do if faced with this problem. We realize the residents of Liberty Ranch are but a tiny part of the Weld County community,but this substation affects the entire population of Liberty Ranch, and while in your eyes, it may be miniscule, in our eyes it is the world. We ask that you give our concerns due consideration. Our family is asking for your assistance in denying permission for approval of this • substation at A. Dale Slater Trust B property. EXHIBIT es ctfully oye E. P uSS2 #lt,zq Hello