The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20071541.tiff Committee for Positive Weld County Partnerships May 18, 2007 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Board of Commissioners Thank you for the recent communication provided through Commissioner Long concerning continued participation in the Committee for Positive Weld County Partnerships area meetings. It was gratifying to see that you considered your attendance in the joint sessions to have been valuable and constructive. Your communication also indicates, however, your preference to focus on the update of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as the primary vehicle for addressing municipal planning issues rather than continued participation in the joint sessions. While we are disappointed that your focus on the Comprehensive Plan will limit your participation in the joint planning efforts, we will continue to meet jointly. Our goal is to develop common approaches to planning to best serve the entire citizen body of Weld within the context of the efforts of each municipality. Our invitation to this process remains open to you as we work in tandem with your efforts to update the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Given the percentage of Weld County population represented by municipalities, we hope you will provide a specific place for input from municipal leaders in the County's comprehensive planning process. Perhaps the Technical Advisory Committee can build a more expansive framework for this opportunity to occur. We know and share the importance placed on input from private landowners. We also look forward to a process that will also include the input of the elected officials which collectively represent the preponderance of the citizens of Weld County. Thank you for your past and continued involvement with the Committee. We look forward to working with you in the development of a cooperative vision for the county that will also serve as a platform for joint agreements whether formalized within the Comprehensive Planning process or through a separate agreement. Sincerely, Q�1 R7a3bl Steering Committee bZ b V hZ OW 1001 Positive Weld County Partnerships Sb3N0ISSIWW03 A.LNf103 013M C on?nu(A/i(/J7v #4/T 2007-1541 or; -3v-O7 Committee for Positive Weld County Partnerships May 18, 2007 [Elected County and Municipal Officials] We are pleased to report that the meeting attended by Weld County Commissioners and Elected officials from Weld County municipalities held on March 29th in Platteville was constructive and productive. A copy of the meeting notes and results of an informal survey and meeting feedback form are attached for your review. As noted, the majority of those in attendance indicated that communication was improved as a result of the meeting and that there is value in continuing the effort to foster intergovernmental understandings and working relationships relative to community growth and development. We are deeply appreciative of the fine work provided by Brian Lessman, who facilitated the group discussion and provided a structure for the meeting and subsequent feedback. Special thanks are due also to the Town of Platteville which hosted the meeting as well as the Town of Firestone for providing the light refreshments. Since then, the Agenda Committee convened to discuss the merits of another meeting. Dave Long offers the following position from the Weld County Commissioners: "The Board of Weld County Commissioners have attended the 3 meetings of the Positive Partnership and have found them to be valuable and constructive. These meetings have stimulated relationships and discussions that we believe will lead to positive change. The 3 main issues some of the municipalities would like to address are meaningful IGA's, land use vision and definitions of compatibility. At this time it is our belief that the efforts to resolve these and other planning issues would best be served within the process of updating the Weld County Comprehensive Plan which is in it's beginning stages. We have listened to you and there is a general consensus that creating individual IGA's that remain flexible and that reflect the local needs and identity of your community best serves all Weld County citizens. As always we look forward to continue our positive partnership with you individually or as a group of municipalities if there are issues of regional interest. It is important to us that all voices are heard including private citizens and public officials. You will be receiving a letter in the near future detailing the status of the Weld County only RTA idea,the Comprehensive plan update and opportunities for further communication." Based upon the Commissioners' communication, the municipal members of the Agenda Committee decided to send a letter to the Commissioners thanking them for their participation and issuing to them an open invitation for future attendance. The letter also encourages them to fully include the municipalities in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan update.For your reference,a copy of that letter is attached to this email message. We will arrange for a meeting among interested Weld County municipalities at the June CML conference. There we will present and discuss a menu of potential options related to your first priority"Meaningful IGAs". This meeting will be held Wednesday,June 27th, from noon until 1p.m. at the Networking Luncheon. Check in at the entrance to the Luncheon and identify yourself as being from Weld County and you will be given directions. We will also discuss future meetings including a 7 a.m.breakfast on Thursday, June 28th. If you have any general questions or a change in contact information please feel free to contact Greta Steinmetz, City of Greeley City Managers' office at 350-9774 or greta.ste i nmetza gree l eygo v.com. As always, thank you for your commitment to the people of Weld County. Steering Committee Positive Weld County Partnerships Committee for Positive Weld County Partnerships March 29, 2007 Meeting Notes Meeting Attendees: Elected Officials Sharon Falcone, Firestone Dave Long, Weld County Pam Shaddock, Greeley Don Feldhaus, Greeley Ed Starck, Windsor Tammy McCain, Hudson Steve Shafer, Platteville Mike Simone, Firestone Julie Crowder, Firestone Dennis Bertron, Firestone Erin Fosdick, Longmont Rob Masden, Weld County Tom Pettit, Kersey Joe Adolf, Kersey Wade Carlson, Dacono Bill Jerke, Weld County Doug Rademacher, Weld County John C. Holdren, Severance Staff Joe Gerdom, Dacono Monica Mika, Weld County Greg Thompson, Greeley Becky Safarik, Greeley Nick Meier, Platteville Press Cara O'Brien, TriTowns Newspaper Doug Crowl, Daily Times-Call 1 Brian Lessman described the ground rules for the group communication, his role as facilitator and the goals of the evening's meeting within the available time. He directed and invited group discussion through a series of questions as presented below. When development occurs, what belief(s) or traditions(s) are called upon to determine whether development occurs in the County of Weld or within a municipal boundary? Don Feldhaus discussed choices, community amenities, rural beauty, and consumer options. Rob Masden indicated choices, large lot development and differing standards for development are important. Doug Rademacher talked about restrictions in communities leading to development in the County, and noted standards are not common between communities. Bill Jerke spoke about economic opportunity for rural property owners to do some development and noted they should be able to provide some lots for sale. He also discussed oil and gas impacts and less intense development. Pam Shaddock suggested developers go to the County because of less code enforcement there and that development in the County is perceived to be cheaper. She noted developments in the County typically provide fewer services, and have lower development fees. Dave Long responded that county codes are enforced. Mr. Long noted services are provided in the County and some communities use the county for otherwise typically provided municipal services, such as using the sheriff instead of providing municipal police service. The County also provides social services throughout the County. There is a balance of services rendered by the county and the municipalities. Municipal growth also drives some County needs and requirements, such as social services and the health department. Sharon Falcone discussed Metropolitan Districts raising taxes. Mike Simone indicated development in communities typically receives higher police protection levels. Additionally, decision-makers are more aware of the context of and impacts to surroundings with land use choices since towns have a more concentrated population and jurisdictional boundary and interest. John Holdren spoke about higher densities being important. 2 Doug Rademacher suggested he would like every development to occur in the municipalities. He also discussed impact fees, and indicated the quality of life between rural and urban areas is debatable. Mike Simone agreed that standards from community to community can be different. He also noted impact fees to the County don't take care of development impacts in the nearby communities. It was noted county taxes paid are designed to take care of county roads among other services.. Pam Shaddock indicated density allows greater services and amenities. Dave Long suggested the density idea is good theory, but is not necessarily realized in reality. He noted flagpole annexations don't follow the theory because it's hard to deliver core services to outlying areas in a community. What foundations drive your actions? Rob Masden discussed water, sewer, and infrastructure needs. He indicated metropolitan districts can pay for those infrastructure needs in the County. The County charges a capital improvement fee which will primarily go to jails. He brought up the fact that residential growth doesn't pay its own way. Metro Districts are a way for growth to pay its own way. Such districts afford the opportunity for a law enforcement authority, public water and sewer, fully developed streets, etc. Bill Jerke discussed values and the preservation of property rights. He indicated it's important for property owners to have the ability to do something with their land other than what has traditionally been done. He indicated the market dictates price. He believes it's important to give development tools to property owners to allow small subdivisions and Recorded Exemptions. He further discussed preserving the rights of property owner if their application is turned down by a community. The County is still there for potential development opportunities, otherwise the property is unusable, and has lost property value. Dave Long talked about Weld County's uniqueness and noted public water and sewer systems are not necessarily tied to communities, since a variety of districts exist in the County. He specified a property owner has rights and opportunities, albeit without imposing negative impacts on someone else. Pam Shaddock asked the County to not impoverish the communities. A spread-out development pattern is occurring because of a plethora of lots. She suggested infill development be encouraged. Don Feldhaus indicated the community's Comprehensive Plan and desired development areas needs to fit with what a community can actually develop. 3 Ed Starck discussed vision statements and community visioning. He noted Windsor is working with a variety of districts in the community. They end up with a better product and negotiated conclusions. Sharon Falcone asked about school dedications and discussed mitigations. She also mentioned public safety, and water issues. Property rights were mentioned and she noted it's important to preserve existing and future home values. Steve Shafer wanted to understand the benefits to towns under the county's philosophical approach. Wade Carlson indicated Dacono believes in the value of community planning. Dacono's Comprehensive Plan has been updated recently and identifies a planning territory. Furthermore, they have entered into Intergovernmental Agreements with neighboring communities. He noted 200 people in and around their community worked on the Comprehensive Plan. They have funded studies for transportation corridors, water plans, etc. and involved the residents. Additionally, their ordinances implements these plans and spell out what can be done in any given zone. Dave Long noted preserving property rights and mitigating them was more the comment which should have been on the paper copy posted on the wall. The wording may have led some to express a concern when different wording would not have. Next Steps Dave Long indicated the topics brought up should be discussed further. He noted some rural residents purchase goods in communities, and may not use that community's services, which is a benefit to the community. He also noted communication/dispatch for the entire County is shared by Greeley and Weld, but other communities benefit from this service. Doug Rademacher noted Metro Districts can be costly, but indicated communities are using this financial tool as well as the County. Mike Simone noted Firestone uses Metro Districts only for infrastructure. Competition between other districts and metro districts was discussed. Rob Masden suggested some communities aren't full service, and illustrated his point by noting they don't have their own water service,but use water districts instead. Ed Starck agreed that Windsor has water IGAs and some Metro Districts. 4 Pam Shaddock expressed concern about County Metro Districts potentially developing on the edge of communities and competing with the communities, rather than channeling development into the City. She indicated the people are the City, not the revenue. Sharon Falcone noted concern with the County tax base in relation to metro districts. Hard to sell additional tax hikes to districts that already have higher taxes than other areas. Ed Starck inquired where the property rights concerns come from? Bill Jerke indicated to him, property rights equal the pursuit of happiness and affords people the opportunity to move ahead with opportunity. They are the right to do what is desired by a property owner as long as a neighbor isn't injured. He noted codes can limit what is done. If there is prime development land and development isn't permitted, it can be a taking. Case law supports private property rights. Mr. Jerke noted the County Commissioners don't have concern with City development, but indicated the opposite isn't the case. Ed Starck indicated no City official wants to take rights from property owners, but when there is an impact from development, there is concern. Property value can be enhanced by the City to some degree. Dave Long suggested no community in Weld does infill development and noted most communities have annexations spidering out from their urban core. Communities in the County are expanding their physical space. Mike Simone indicated Firestone is concerned whether a particular development is going to enhance or take away from their quality of life. Hodge-podge development in the county hasn't been done elsewhere in the Country and likely won't be successful here. He noted that development pattern doesn't allow for a sense of community. Pam Shaddock noted Greeley is concerned with how communities develop as well. She confirmed defensive annexations have been done. Revenue sharing could be useful avenue to pursue throughout the State. As it is now, I-25 is a magnet. Bill Jerke inquired whether defensive annexations were occurring to protect from county or city development? The response was both. Pam Shaddock suggested a core issue is the lack of revenue sharing. Greeley does some sharing with Windsor and Evans. Rob Masden noted developers look for the best opportunity, which can lead to competition between communities and the County. His preference is to have development occur in the City. In fact, County planners guide developers to the nearby communities first. The County has worked well with Windsor on locating the ethanol plant and Owens-Illinois. 5 Bill Jerke rhetorically asked whether County residents are well served if rapid response is available for industrial users. He noted the County land use review process is relatively fast and can help secure the development, which provides jobs to the area. Pam Shaddock agreed major employers are important and noted all in the room are working for industry development to occur. She noted this may be an area all can agree on. She suggested the residential impacts and development are a greater issue and noted the City worries about design. There was general agreement that industry is a common thread that all want to see happen. Dennis Bertron inquired about the time frame for reviews. Rob Masden noted an example of good cooperation between the County and communities when an ethanol plant was looking for a site to develop. The County shopped it around. He noted zoned areas are needed with the infrastructure in place to attract good industry. Ed Starck agreed that there is good communication with the County about industrial development opportunities. He did not, however, Windsor has never received any taxes from Kodak, but the impact of that business has been felt. They need to work further with the County to have development occur in Windsor. Mr. Starck also noted 1/3 of their general fund budget goes to recreation and parks. They permit Windsor or County residents into their programs. Their community is tied in with Severance. Their recreation program is subsidized 70%. Rob Masden confirmed the Windsor recreation program is used by Severance people as well as County residents. He noted out of district recreation users in Ft. Lupton pay more. Dave Long noted continued communication is important, in relation to the County's Comprehensive Plan. Bill Jerke provided an update on Weld Comprehensive Plan process. He indicated representatives will be on the Comprehensive Plan advisory board from the southwest Weld area, Greeley, and Windsor and that the County wants diversity in their members. He indicated it will be a one year process and won't be from the top down. He noted the County received an Our Town grant, which will provide a series of speakers in May which the public will be invited to hear. Comprehensive plan funding issues exist for smaller communities. He noted only eight municipal officials have attended the two county workshops used as a kick-off for the Comprehensive Plan. Doug Rademacher indicated the goals appear to be the same. Rob Masden invited elected officials to the Mayor's meetings, because attendance is currently pretty sparse. 6 Committee for Positive Weld County Partnerships—Feedback Comments—03.29.07 FEEDBACK COMMENTS 3-29-07 Accomplishments to date: • Great communication(C) • Think differences are becoming minor now that Mead has done away with votes on annexations (C) • Good discussions on a lot of things (C) • Good interactions (C) • Myths vs. reality statements (C) • Open dialogue (C) (M) • Less bickering (C) (M) • Finding common ground (C) (M) • Increased understanding • Highlighting the inaccuracies • Clarifying what County considers property rights (M) • Clarifying that metro districts are urban service providers (M) • It's still alive (M) • I feel the layout of the room really helped communication (M) • We are listening (M) • My first meeting(M) • Communications are opening up (M) • Respect for each other is improving(M) • Some levels of understanding of opposing views are taking place (M) • This meeting was constructive dialogue(M) • Discussion format allowed for open communication(M) • A better understanding of County philosophy now(M) • We are meeting and talking(M) 1 FEEDBACK COMMENTS 3-29-07 In the future focus on the following outcomes: • More discussion of myths vs. realities (C) • What standards need to be standardized(C) • IGA's where none exist (C) (M) • Continuity(C) • Further clarity on those issues where there is the most agreement (M) • Model IGA with County and municipalities (M) • IGA's (M) • More discussion about the meaning of property rights (M) • Industrial and agricultural corridors (M) • Land use in the County(M) • Meaningful IGA (M) • IGA discussions (M) • Utilities (M) • Process each entity uses to approve development(M) • List of priority and pending issues before moving to the next level (M) • More definition of property rights (M) • Explore extent to which the County pushes development to the municipalities (M) • Ways to share impact fees in order to mitigate municipal impacts (M) • Agreements on comprehensive plans (M) General Comments • Let the process work on its own time frame (C) • Keep an open time frame (C) • Very informative session(M) • Good facilitator work(M) • Continue with this facilitator(M) • Good job on room arrangement(M) • Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this discussion(M) • Best meeting so far(M) 2 Committee for Positive Weld County Partnerships—Summary of responses &votes—03.29.07 When development occurs, what beliefs or traditions are called upon to determine whether or not development occurs in the County of Weld or within a municipal boundary? It occurs in the County because: • Folks like the choice of more acres and a rural setting • There are fewer restrictions than communities impose • The land owner prefers the economic development in this location • Weld has external forces to development such as plenty of water that does not come from municipalities • There may be fewer regulations in the County • It may be less expensive to develop in the County but there are also fewer services available It occurs at the municipal level because: • There are more services and social amenities in municipal locations • There may be higher and better level of services available • People like the sense of community such as a neighborhood • Developers can create higher density • There may be higher quality of life standards in a municipal environment • Folks who like to be a part of groups and the added social structure prefer a municipal location 1 • Notwithstanding statutes or ordinances, what rights, responsibilities or duties do county leaders consider paramount in the consideration of development in the County? • Are there core services available such as water, sewer, infrastructure, and how will the project impact the county such as the need for jail services? Red=4 Blue= 1 Green= 8 • Can the development pay its own way including such things as metro districts? The County supports urbanization of development. Red=6 Blue=2 Green= 0 • Can property rights or value to the owner be preserved? Red= 3 Blue= 3 Green=0 • Can Weld find appropriate water and sewer for the development? Red =0 Blue =0 Green= 5 • Is there opportunity without harm to neighboring owners? Red=2 Blue= 1 Green=0 Red=number of participants who felt that this foundation or belief may be a source of conflict between the County and Municipal Governments. Blue =number of participants who felt that this foundation or belief may be in conflict now but with further discussions may have promise for a common accord. Green=number of participants who felt that this foundation or belief may form a basis of common accord with few or minor adjustments as currently presented. 2 • Notwithstanding statutes or ordinances, what rights, responsibilities or duties do leaders consider paramount in the consideration of development within a municipality? • Can the development occur without impoverishing the municipality? Red= 5 Blue= 3 Green= 0 • Does the development fit into the comprehensive plans adopted with community input? Red=0 Blue=0 Green = 0 • Does the development fit with community norms? Red= 1 Blue= 0 Green=2 • Is the developer able to provide the mitigations requested by the municipality? Red = 0 Blue=0 Green=2 • Does the development accommodate concern for public safety? Red= 1 Blue=2 Green= 3 • Considering water in(availability) and water out (sanitation), can the developer and municipality provide such in an adequate manner? Red=0 Blue=0 Green = 5 • Is there value and benefit in the existing property rights? Red= 1 Blue= 1 Green=2 • Can the developer adequately outline expectations for the development? Red=0 Blue=0 Green = 1 Red=number of participants who felt that this foundation or belief may be a source of conflict between the County and Municipal Governments. Blue=number of participants who felt that this foundation or belief may be in conflict now but with further discussions may have promise for a common accord. Green=number of participants who felt that this foundation or belief may form a basis of common accord with few or minor adjustments as currently presented. 3 FEEDBACK RESPONSE 3-29-07 Please Note: Responses are based upon individual responses and do not represent an official position of any group. Respondents #Responses County Government 3 Municipal Government 10 No Affiliation Checked 1 Both Affiliations Checked 1 Total Responders 15 Note:Breakout responses may not equal number of responders due to no selection or multiple selections. Progress All Respondents County Municipal No Affiliation Both Affiliations Less than hoped for 2 0 2 0 0 Moving at an expected rate 10 1 7 1 0 More than expected 3 2 1 0 1 Should Discussions Continue? Continue in some manner 13 2 10 0 1 Discussions have run their course, move on 2 1 0 1 0 Format for future discussions Large group external facilitator 9 1 7 NR 1 Large group with shared facilitation by group members 1 1 NR Smaller groups with updates to larger group for feedback 5 1 3 NR 1 Another Idea-(develop specific IGA concepts for discussion) 1 1 Work toward... Note:Numbers below represent average ranking of respondents.(Lower numbers are most favored response) Intergovernmental agreement 1.62 2.50 1.50 NR 1.00 Summary part of adopted resolution 1.60 1.50 1.63 NR NR Summary distributed to elected officials and key staff 2.60 2.00 2.75 NR NR Expectation of final outcome Note:Numbers below represent average ranking of respondents.(Lower numbers are most favored response) 1-Jul-07 2.00 NR 2.00 NR NR 1-Jan-08 1.50 NR 1.50 NR NR 1-Jul-08 2.12 NR 2.12 NR 1.00 Note:two responses called for an open ended timeline with no deadline in general,there seems to be considerable support for continuing discussions in some format. While most prefer a large group format with an external facilitator,there is some support for working in small groups as well. 'Perhaps a combination of formats could be acceptable in the future. Narrative comments would indicate that the opportunity to listen to one another and clarify position is something that was received in a favorable manner. *With regard to progress,most feel that the process is moving at an expected rate indicating that most individuals are not likely working at a frustration level with regard to the discussions. *With regard to an end product, county leaders are most likely to support some kind of resolution which might describe working relationships in some detail. Municipal leaders would support either an intergovernmental agreement or a defined resolution. This area likely represents the greatest difference between county and municipal leaders based upon the feedback. Further discussion may be required to better define the format of any final documentation. The IGA format seems to be the least favored approach by county leaders but enjoys considerable support from municipal leaders. *Defining deadlines leans toward January of 2008 as the most favored response,however it should be noted that county leaders are likely to support an open-ended timeline while municipal leaders feel the greatest urgency. Hello