HomeMy WebLinkAbout20073191.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
OCTOBER 10, 2007
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, met in regular session in full conformity
with the laws of the State of Colorado at the regular place of meeting in the Weld County Centennial
Center, Greeley, Colorado, October 10, 2007, at the hour of 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chair and on roll call the following members were
present, constituting a quorum of the members thereof:
Commissioner David E. Long, Chair
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Pro-Tem
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner Robert D. Masden - EXCUSED
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher - EXCUSED
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Elizabeth Strong
Controller, Barb Connolly
MINUTES: Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of October 8, 2007, as printed. Commissioner Jerke seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Jerke moved to approve the Certification of Hearings
conducted on October 8, 2007, as follows: 1) Hearing for Consideration of Granting the Franchise
Application of K-2 Communications, LLC. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: No public input was given.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Jerke moved to approve the consent agenda as printed.
Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
WARRANTS: Barb Connolly, Controller, stated there are no warrants to present today.
BIDS:
PRESENT BIDS: Ms. Connolly stated there are no bids to present today.
2007-3191
BC0016
//-&/-6, 7
APPROVE WASHERS AND DRYERS FOR 3RD PHASE JAIL BID- DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND
ADMINISTRATION AND SHERIFF'S OFFICE: Ms.Connolly stated there are three vendors who submitted
a bid, and two of the bids are within two dollars of one another. She stated one of the nearly identical bids
is from Brand Source and includes vents and clamps, which cannot be used since the jail requires hard,
rather than flexible pipe; therefore,without the vents and clamps,the bid from Brand Source will be$72.00
less. She explained the alteration to the bid is not in the original proposal. Commissioner Jerke moved
to approve said bid from Stevens Appliance, in the amount of $13,516.00, since it is the most straight
forward and does not require alterations to the paperwork. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia,the motion
carried unanimously.
APPROVE BANKING SERVICES BID - TREASURER'S OFFICE: Ms. Connolly stated four vendors
submitted bids and the Treasurer's Office has performed an analysis of the proposed banking services and
the costs. John Lefebrve, Treasurer, stated the County's contract with Wells Fargo expired; therefore,the
department needs to delegate a company to perform banking services,and Wells Fargo was not interested
in renewing the contract at the same rate. He stated quotes from four banks were obtained through the
Request for Price (RFP) process and one bank failed to respond. He explained it is difficult to make an
"apples to apples"comparison with banking services since the banks charge different amounts for services
which are often called different names. Mr. Lefebrve explained staff scored the banks by comparing as
many of the fees which are charged by all of the banks as possible, such as, deposited item fees, and
particular attention was paid to fees which will be regularly applied. He stated the County is willing to pay
full price for banking services if the overnight services pay well, since the County makes significantly more
money with the overnight services than the cost of the banking services. He explained some banks may
offer free banking services; however, the amount of money paid for the overnight funds is reduced;
therefore, it is not a good value. Mr. Lefebrve stated staff scored the amount of money to be earned over
and above a zero baseline, as compared to the federal funds rate, considering the money market funds
in Colorado pay about 12 basis points under the federal funds rate. He stated each of the banks chose
a rate in relation to the federal funds rate. He further stated staff used twelve basis points underneath the
zero line and then scored everything above and below the zero line in regards to what the total net income
would be. Mr. Lefebrve stated the County has received 590 basis points, or a 5.9 percent rate of return
in the past twelve months on investments, divided over the amount of money earned, and the value of a
basis point was determined to be $4,020.00 per basis point since the average amount of money in an
account is $40,000,000.00. He stated the basis point was multiplied times the value above or below the
zero point and then that number was subtracted from the amount of banking fees anticipated, and through
this process, Wells Fargo equals-$22,890.00; therefore, the County will make approximately$22,890.00
more than the anticipated banking fees by doing business with Wells Fargo, whereas the other banks will
cost the County to do business with. Mr. Lefebvre stated Union Colony is the only bank to apply a
transition fee, which includes staff training; and the County will end up paying approximately $40,000.00
more to conduct business with US Bank than with Wells Fargo; however, the other banks did not include
anything like a transition fee in the information provided. He stated Wells Fargo is by far the best value
and reduced its banking fees by thirty-eight percent. In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Lefebvre
stated the numbers under Chase bank are not an error; however, the numbers are outliers. Further
responding to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Lefebvre stated the most frequently charged bank fees were
considered, regardless of how the fees were named. Commissioner Garcia stated Wells Fargo seems to
be the easiest and most cost effective choice,and moved to approve the Well's Fargo Bid, based on staff's
recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Jerke, the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER PURCHASE OF SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - GREELEY SENIOR HOUSING CORPORATION: Walt Speckman,
Director of Human Services, stated the Department has entered into this agreement for many years and
the amount per meal is increasing this year from $2.50 to$3.00. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve
Minutes, October 10, 2007 2007-3191
Page 2 BC0016
said service agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Jerke, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER EXPENDITURE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Mr. Speckman stated there are two expenditure authorizations and one
expenditure modification request included in this item of business. He stated the Enhanced Dislocated
Worker Expenditure Authorization requests funds to cover the costs associated with providing services to
eligible Dislocated Workers Program participants, and the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP)
Expenditure Authorization requests funds to cover the overhead costs associated with providing services
to eligible veterans. He further stated the Wagner Peyser Expenditure Modification is an addition to
existing funds as a result of an adjustment made by the State. Commissioner Jerke moved to approve
said expenditure authorizations and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PURCHASE OF SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR PRESCHOOL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN -WELD COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-8: Mr. Speckman stated this is an ongoing
agreement concerning classroom and office space, special education services, and meal services. In
response to Chair Long, Mr. Speckman stated the meals are prepared at the Head Start facility.
Commissioner Jerke moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by
Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AGREEMENT FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN-WELD
COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-3J: Mr. Speckman stated this is an agreement to provide special
education services. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to
sign. Seconded by Commissioner Jerke, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PURCHASE OF SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MEALS AND SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN -WELD COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-3J: Mr. Speckman stated this is a separate
agreement with a different branch of the school to provide the food program. Commissioner Jerke moved
to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER AGREEMENT CONCERNING PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS TO CR13,AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN NECESSARY DOCUMENTS-COWAN
FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC: Leon Sievers, Department of Public Works,stated this is the seventh parcel
out of eleven acquired for the Strategic Road 13 Project. He stated the County is acquiring 197,079
square feet of right-of-way, which is 4.5 acres, for$374,450.00, which equals $1.97 per square foot. He
further stated the County is also acquiring 14,231 square feet of right-of-way for$13,519.00. Mr. Sievers
stated 29,533 square feet of remainder property is being conveyed back to the Cowan Family
Properties, LLC, for a refund amount of$56,152.00. He stated the County is also acquiring 2.66 acres of
temporary construction easement for$22,015.00,which is ten percent of the land value. He explained all
of the values were determined by Foster Valuation Company, and the total compensation due to the land
owner is $353,832.00. Mr. Sievers explained the amount of expenses was anticipated and budgeted for.
In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Sievers stated the cost of$353,832.00 includes the$56,152.00
reimbursement. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign
necessary documents. Seconded by Commissioner Jerke, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ENERGY AND MINERAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT CONTRACT FOR
WELD COUNTY ROAD 2 IMPROVEMENTS(PHASE ONE)AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Monica
Mika, Director of Administrative Services, stated the grant is for improvements on a three-mile stretch of
County Road 2 between County Roads 39 to 45. She stated Weld County is partnering with Adams
Minutes, October 10, 2007 2007-3191
Page 3 BC0016
County, and Adams County is funding half of the project. She further stated the amount of funding
requested is $940,000.00. In response to Chair Long, Ms. Mika stated the amount is the combined total
for both Adams and Weld Counties; therefore, it is a joint application. In response to Commissioner Jerke,
Ms. Mika stated Weld County is the lead agency for this project since it is energy impact funding.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said contract and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by
Commissioner Jerke, the motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING:
REVIEW COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL#1.F.1 AND#1.F.4, REGARDING ON-SITE
SIGNAGE AND SCREENING, FOR USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #1495 FOR A BUSINESS
PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT OR ACCESSORY USE IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT:
(LANDSCAPE MATERIALS YARD) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - TIMBERROCK
LANDSCAPE, C/O JESSE ARAGON, C/O ZIER LAW OFFICES: In response to Chair Long, Bruce
Barker, County Attorney, stated this item of business is an enforcement action and is unlike a hearing or
the presentation of an application. Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, stated USR#1495
for a Business Permitted as a Use by Right or Accessory Use in the Commercial Zone District(landscape
materials yard) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District was approved by the Board on February 8, 2006.
Ms. Martin explained Condition of Approval #1.F.4 states the applicant has delineated one onsite sign,
which shall adhere to Sections 23-4-90.A and B of the County Code, which states one identification sign
per principal use shall be allowed provided the sign does not exceed 16 square feet in area. She stated
the second Condition of Approval under review is #1.F.1 and it states in order to mitigate the potentially
negative impacts and aesthetic concerns on surrounding properties, the applicant shall delineate an
opaque visual screening on all sides of the property to completely screen all materials stored on site. She
further stated the Department conducted a site inspection of the property on November 3, 2006, and the
County Attorney's Office wrote a letter dated November 29, 2006, indicating which Conditions of Approval
from the Resolution still required completion prior to the plat being recorded, which included Conditions
of Approval #1.F.4, #1.F.1., and #1.H. Ms. Martin stated Condition of Approval #1.H has subsequently
been completed. She stated the applicants attorney responded to the County Attorney in a letter dated
December 13, 2006, indicating his client has worked to comply with the Conditions of Approval from the
Resolution and believe the Conditions have been met. She stated an additional site inspection was
conducted on August 7,2007,and noted most of the opaque visual screening has been installed; however,
it was not completed on the east side of property. She further stated it was also noted that several
additional signs identifying TimberRock Landscape's principal use which were not identified in the initial
application have been placed on surrounding property owners' property along the access easement.
Ms. Martin stated the Department recommends all signs along the easement access be removed and the
screening be completed prior to the plat being issued. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Martin
stated her conversations with surrounding property owners indicate consent has not been given by the
neighbors for TimberRock Landscape to place the signs on their property. Rick Zier, attorney for
TimberRock Landscape, stated he does not think of this matter as a compliance issue but rather a
clarification issue. Mr.Zier stated if upon clarification, it is determined there is a problem, the applicant will
work to correct it. He stated great effort has been made by his clients to comply with the Conditions of
Approval, and these are minor items compared to the amount of work which has been completed in order
to bring this property into compliance. Mr. Zier stated the signs were in existence during the pubic hearing
process, and the schematics were in the application materials. He explained there is one on-site
identification sign and there are three directional signs which are a little over one square foot in size and
are mounted on other signs which were installed at the expense of the applicant, including a Stop sign, a
No-Thru-Traffic sign, and a Children Playing sign. Mr. Zier stated the Code specifies one on-site
identification sign and it was never suggested that more than one on-site identification sign was needed.
He stated he and his client have been unaware there was an issue with the directional signs, as they had
not received any complaints nor had any been passed on by Planning Services staff. He further stated
one person had complained at the public hearing about vehicles turning around in their driveway when
Minutes, October 10, 2007 2007-3191
Page 4 BC0016
trying to locate TimberRock Landscaping, and the applicant had posted the signs in an effort to deter traffic
from this and other residential properties by assisting customers in locating the business more efficiently.
Mr. Zier stated the directional signs are needed to facilitate public safety on County Road 17, for example,
to help avoid people braking suddenly in order to make the correct turn, and to deter traffic from mistakenly
turning into the neighbors'properties. He stated no limits or conditions were specified regarding directional
signs. Mr. Zier explained when the signs were erected, and the application was initially submitted, the
quarter mile, 60-foot easement was jointly owned, and a lawsuit was brought to narrow the 60-foot
easement and challenge the uses of the easement the request was denied. He stated he does not believe
it is the responsibility of this Board to make determinations regarding consent on the easement. Mr. Zier
stated regarding screening, all of the landscape materials have been completely screened, and additional
fencing on the east side of the property will not serve to screen any additional materials. Jesse Aragon,
owner, stated he was surprised to hear the Department of Planning Services did not feel he was in
compliance with his Use by Special Review. Mr. Aragon stated all of the material piles have been
screened completely, including the flagstone piles, and there are no materials to be screened on the
remainder of the east side of the property. He submitted Exhibits A, B, and C into the record. He stated
he is not in favor of creating a stockade on his property. Mr. Aragon stated the issue of dust abatement
was previously addressed and he will treat the soil twice per year, rather than once per year. Mr. Aragon
stated he feels the placement of the signs is reasonable for enjoyment of the easement, and reiterated he
had to go through a legal process to prove he had the right to use the easement. He stated safety is being
addressed with the placement of the directional signs,as signs being removed will disrupt business activity
and increase displaced and disoriented traffic in the area. In response to Ms. Martin, Mr. Aragon stated
the property has changed since her photograph was taken, and it has been completely screened from the
roadway with concrete where there is not fencing. He stated there is a photograph demonstrating the
current condition in Exhibit A, and one can view the blocks which are now screening materials from public
view. Tina Schimmer, surrounding property owner, stated a yellow directional sign is on the property, and
she and her family were not notified the sign would be placed there, nor asked for permission to place the
sign there. She stated the directional signs were not in the original application. In response to
Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Schimmer stated all four of the signs are located on her property, and the
applicant should have at least asked regarding placing the large sign. Mr. Zier stated when the sign was
erected on the property, it was mutually owned, and the court proceeding discussed all of the currently
placed signs. He stated he is happy to discuss the situation with the Schimmers. Ms. Martin explained
in the original application, the only indication of a sign is the one on-site sign. She stated additional
information was submitted at a Board meeting; however, it was not reviewed by the Planning Commission.
In response to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Barker stated upon review of the order, it does not address the
directional sign issue and he concurs with Mr. Zier that the issue be should be taken up with the court if
necessary. In response to Chair Long, Mr. Barker stated the Board is being asked to make a
determination whether the signs which are identifying the location of the business are within the boundaries
of, and in compliance with, the Use by Special Review and the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner
Jerke stated he believes it is a public safety issue not to have the larger visible directional sign, and the
other signs are very small and unobtrusive. Commissioner Jerke stated he does not find the applicant
is in violation in respect to the directional signs, and the property issue may need to be addressed in court.
Commissioner Jerke stated he is on the side of TimberRock Landscaping and he thinks they have done
a fantastic job, the property looks beautiful, the signs are beneficial to the community, and the applicants
are not in violation of the Use by Special Review. Commissioner Garcia stated he did not hear the initial
Board meeting concerning issuing the Use by Special Review Permit, however, he does not think it is the
Board's place to make decisions regarding the court issues. Commissioner Garcia stated he is concerned
about additional signs on the premises, for example, signs on the tough sheds; however, those can easily
be removed absent of governmental action. Commissioner Garcia stated regarding the screening, the
premises look very nice and it is sufficiently screened. Chair Long concurred with Commissioner Garcia's
statements. Mr. Barker stated the question for the Board to answer is whether the applicant is in
compliance with the terms of the Use by Special Review, and it sounds as if the Board feels the applicant
Minutes, October 10, 2007 2007-3191
Page 5 BC0016
is in compliance. Commissioner Jerke moved to find that the signs and screening of materials are in
compliance with the intent of the original Use by Special Review Permit #1495. Commissioner Garcia
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the consent
agenda. No Ordinances were approved.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.
BOARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
� COUNTY, COLORADO
/
i
ATTEST: ;� r�-.;‘://e.41/./ �" c&n C °Cy
l isii =� David E. Long, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Boa , !
® ,m—
� ��.�I� William H. Jerke, Pro-Tem
BY: able
Dep Cle , o the Bo. . (I ���
William E Garcia
EXCUSED
Robert D. Masden
EXCUSED
Douglas Rademacher
Minutes, October 10, 2007 2007-3191
Page 6 BC0016
Hello