HomeMy WebLinkAbout20023105.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
DECEMBER 2, 2002
TAPE#2002-39
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, December 2, 2002, 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 Glenn Vaad, Chair
Commissioner David E. Long, Pro-Tem
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner William H. Jerke
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Also present:
Assistant County Attorney, Cyndy Giauque
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther E. Gesick
Director of Finance and Administration, Donald D. Warden
MINUTES: Commissioner Masden moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of November 27, 2002, as printed. Commissioner Long seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA: There were no additions to the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Long moved to approve the consent agenda as printed.
Commissioner Jerke seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
PUBLIC INPUT: There was no public input.
WARRANTS: Donald Warden, Director of Finance and Administration, presented the following warrants
for approval by the Board:
All Funds $115,990.47
Commissioner Long moved to approve the warrants as presented by Mr. Warden. Commissioner Geile
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
2002-3105
BC0016
OLD BUSINESS:
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES FOR 2000 - K. P. KAUFFMAN
COMPANY, INC.: Christopher Woodruff, Assessor's Office, stated this matter was continued from
November 4, 2002, to allow K. P. Kauffman Company, Inc., adequate time to submit the appropriate
documentation. Mr. Woodruff stated staff reviewed the documentation and is still recommending denial.
He explained all of the declarations made for 2000 and 2001 listed the wellhead prices, which are not
allowed as exemptions. Mr.Woodruff stated staff also researched the specific expenses and has concerns
with the miscellaneous claims taken for legal fees, professional dues,advertising, bank supplies, property
taxes on an office,and professional fees,which were not appropriately deducted from the wellhead stream
price. Mr. Woodruff stated staff also reviewed ten specific wells and found five which under reported the
production amount, which would have resulted in a higher valuation. He further stated the petitioner has
not paid these taxes, therefore, no refund interest will be due. Richard Logan, Logan and Firmine, stated
he submitted the necessary information on November 5,2002; however, staff did not inform the petitioner
of these concerns until this morning. Mr. Logan stated they filed this abatement because the property was
listed as a wellhead, and should have been listed as related or unrelated parties. He stated there may
have been discrepancies on production amounts because staff referenced the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission Internet site,which is not very accurate. He stated they are taxed on sales, not
production,so the submitted figures are not accurate. He further stated they deducted the miscellaneous
expenses as overhead; however, they chose not to claim the total overhead charges which could have
been taken through the various operating agreements. Mr. Logan stated they did claim$3,000 for property
taxes on an office; however,they did not take any allowable deductions for the surface equipment in 2000.
In response to Mr. Logan, Mary Hazen,Assessor's Office,stated the property taxes on well equipment can
be claimed as a deduction; however, they were not claimed by the petitioner. Commissioner Jerke
commented it is apparent there are many issues which still need to be resolved before he will be able to
make a determination on the matter. Commissioner Geile commented some of the miscellaneous
deductions mentioned by staff should have come out of stock holders' equity, and he concurred with the
comments of Commissioner Jerke. Gordon Allott, General Council for the petitioner, stated they provide
the Assessor's Office with the necessary information on November 5, 2002, and he expressed concern
with the lack of communication or response from the Assessor's Office. He stated denial of this matter will
cost the company a lot of money, and they have not had much opportunity to respond to the issues raised
by staff. He stated the deductions claimed by the petitioner have been granted to other companies, and
this will likely result in a lawsuit which will be very costly. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Logan
stated he called the Assessor's Office on November 27,2002,and on several previous occasions,yet they
received no response. Chair Vaad commented there is an appeal pending before the Board of
Assessment Appeals, regarding the 1999 Tax Abatement Petition, which deals with many of the same
issues, and the issue of cost is mute at this point because the company has not paid the taxes. He further
stated there is also an appeal in the Colorado Court of Appeals between Washington County and the
Petron Oil Company dealing with some of the same issues. Commissioner Jerke moved to deny said
petition as recommended by staff. Commissioner Geile seconded the motion,which carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES FOR 2001 - K. P. KAUFFMAN
COMPANY, INC.: Based on the previous discussion, Commissioner Masden moved to deny said petition
as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Long,and it carried unanimously.
Commissioner Geile encouraged the petitioner to continue working with the Assessor's Office to come to
a resolution prior to the Board of Assessment Appeals.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE AND STATEMENT OF GRANT AWARD FOR 2003
VOCA DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/SPECIAL POPULATIONS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN:
Gary Rathke, 19th Judicial District Attorney's Office, stated the grant application for the Domestic
Violence/Special Populations Project was approved in 2001, in the amount of $28,989, and he
recommends approval of the second year of grant funding, in the amount of $29,859. In response to
Minutes, December 2, 2002 2002-3105
Page 2 BC0016
Commissioner Geile, Mr. Rathke stated this is Federal funding, therefore, it will not be subject to the
Governor's budget cuts. Commissioner Long moved to approve said Certification of Compliance and
Statement of Grant Award, and authorize the Chair to sign. The motion, which was seconded by
Commissioner Masden, carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE OF WCR 76 BETWEEN WCRS 27 AND 29: Frank Hempen,
Jr., Director of Department of Public Works, stated this closure is necessary to complete culvert
replacements on Weld County Road 76, between Roads 27 and 29. He stated this portion of road will be
closed on December 9, 2002, and reopened on December 13, 2002. Commissioner Geile moved to
approve said temporary closure. Commissioner Long seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
CONSIDER SHORT-TERM ROAD MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR WCR 12
AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - SELECT MATERIALS: Mr. Hempen stated this and the next item
of business are required as Conditions of Approval for Use by Special Review Permit#1367, for Select
Materials. He explained under the Short-Term Agreement the operator will provide interim dust control on
Weld County Road 12 from Weld County Road 35 to the site entrance. He further stated the agreement
designates the haul route as Weld County Road 12 west to Weld County Road 35, and then north to State
Highway 52. Commissioner Masden moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign.
Seconded by Commissioner Geile, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER LONG-TERM ROAD MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR WCRS 12
AND 35 AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN -SELECT MATERIALS: Mr. Hempen stated this agreement
starts once the road is completed, and requires interim maintenance and long-term improvements, if
necessary, based upon the traffic along the haul route. Commissioner Long moved to approve said
agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. The motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Jerke,
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER DECLARING CERTAIN EQUIPMENT AS SURPLUS PROPERTY, APPROVE CUSTOMER
PURCHASE ORDER FOR TRADE OF HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR,AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN-
COLORADO MACHINERY: Jeff Jerome, Department of Public Works, stated this is an annual trade-in
option, which lowers the County's operating and ownership costs. In response to Commissioner Geile,
Mr. Jerome stated the County has had the old equipment for two years and after the trade-in, the County
will owe $28,190. He further stated with an estimated life of ten years, trade-in options reduce the
ownership cost and provide a half-life warranty. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Warden stated
the bid was done with the understanding that the County would receive a trade-in option. He stated staff
can get quotes from any Weld County provider to keep the cost competitive. Mr.Jerome added this is one
of two excavators that has the trade-in option. The remaining five are purchased and replaced through
the competitive bid process. He explained if the trade-in is not more economical that the actual purchase,
the County can bid the item. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Jerome stated there are no John
Deere construction equipment providers in Weld County. Commissioner Geile moved to declare said
equipment as surplus, approve said customer purchase order for the trade in and replacement of the
hydraulic excavator, and authorize the Chair to sign. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Long,
and it carried unanimously.
SECOND READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2002-10, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 5 AND APPENDICES 5-A THRU 5-L, OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE: Commissioner Geile moved to read Code Ordinance #2002-10 by title only.
Commissioner Long seconded the motion,which carried unanimously. Mr. Warden read said title for the
record. He reviewed the various fee amendments regarding the bid amount, miscellaneous County fees,
and fees for the Paramedic Services, Clerk to the Board, GIS, Public Health and Environment, and Clerk
and Recorder. Monica Mika, Director of Planning Services, stated the planning fees have not been
amended since 1998,and based on an average planning case,she determined it takes approximately 125
Minutes, December 2, 2002 2002-3105
Page 3 BC0016
planning hours to complete a mining operation, in addition to 30 hours of processing time. She stated
based on the average wage scales it will cost$6,615,and the proposed fee proposed is$5,000 for the first
ten acres,with an additional$200.00 per acre,thereafter. She stated staff initially recommended a flat fee
of$2,000,with$100 per acre in excess of ten acres; however,the Planning Commission amended the fee
as currently proposed. Ms. Mika stated there are two separate fee scales for the Major and Minor
Subdivision,which can also be justified by the corresponding staff time. Commissioner Jerke commented
several constituents have expressed concern regarding the fee for a Confined Animal Feeding Operation
(CAFO). In some instances the fee will be too excessive depending on the type and number of animals
kept. Ms. Mika stated the Planning Commission did discuss this issue, and staff supports this fee,which
is consistent with a composting facility. She stated the fee is based on 1,000 animals;any more is arduous
to process. Commissioner Geile commented this fee may be cost prohibitive for certain types of CAFO's
and he suggested the fee be associated with the number of animal units allowed as a Use by Right. Ms.
Mika stated she will work with the Department of Public Health and Environment to prepare a ratio table
for final reading. She stated in previous discussions the Department of Public Health proposed this fee
be based on the difficulty in developing, maintaining, and monitoring a Waste Handling Plan. Chair Vaad
commented a Use by Right addresses the issue of waste based on the size of the property. No public
testimony was offered concerning this matter. Commissioner Jerke moved to change the fee from $500
to $100 for CAFO's with more than 1,000 animals. Due to a lack of a second, the motion failed.
Commissioner Geile moved to create a fee ratio adjustment table based on the number of animal units
allowed as a Use by Right. Commissioner Jerke seconded the motion. Chair Vaad stated he opposes the
motion because the proposed fee addresses the processing costs associated with the waste handling
plans. He stated the rational needs to be discussed further between staff and the proponents for a fee
reduction in preparation for final reading. In response to Commissioner Masden, Ms. Mika stated
regardless of the type of operation, the planning process is similar to a composting facility; however, the
differences between the various types of waste handling plans will need to be addressed by the
Department of Public Health and Environment. Commissioner Masden commented the differences
between the various types of waste handling is likely very different depending on the type of animal
operation.There being no further discussion,the motion passed to incorporate a fee ratio adjustment table
based on the number of animal units allowed as a Use by Right,with Chair Vaad opposed. Commissioner
Geile moved to approve Code Ordinance#2002-10 on second reading, with changes since first reading
and the previously discussed amendment. Commissioner Long seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
SECOND READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2002-11, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 20 ROAD IMPACT FEES, OF THE WELD COUNTY
CODE: Commissioner Long moved to read Code Ordinance #2002-11 by title only. Commissioner
Masden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Warden read said title for the record. He
stated a County-wide Road Impact Fee study was conducted by Duncan Associates,which also prepared
the study for the Southwest Weld and Windsor service areas. He stated this Code amendment will repeal
the previous ordinances and enact a county-wide impact fee based on seven strategic roads, located in
four quadrants of the County. He stated the money collected in a quadrant will have to be spent in that
quadrant, and the study proposes 188 miles of road to be improved. He displayed the costs and fees,
which will be offset by other revenue generating sources. Mr. Warden reviewed the formula for
determining a fee, which will be assessed at the time a building permit is applied for. He stated at the
request of the Board, there is also a category for Agricultural Commercial. He stated the proposed fees
will be comparable to those in the current fee areas, and he reviewed the ordinance text amendments for
the record. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr.Warden concurred that the benefit areas descriptions
under Section 20-2-400 need to be amended from "1-25"to"Highway 85." (Switched to Tape#2002-40.)
Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr.Warden stated all references to"Director"are meant to imply the
Director of Planning Services. Commissioner Jerke commented it should be clarified that the average
number of miles traveled is three to four miles on a County road before the public reaches a State Highway
or municipal system, and Mr. Warden concurred. Chair Vaad commented Councilman Rademacher
Minutes, December 2, 2002 2002-3105
Page 4 BC0016
questioned as to what happens when a portion of road is annexed which has been designated for
upgrades using road impact fees. Mr. Warden stated the fee is collected for the seven designated roads
in the unincorporated areas of the County, and the money will not be spent on a project if it is annexed.
Those improvements will become the responsibility of the municipality. He further stated Duncan
Associates recommends the study be reviewed at least every five years to reexamine any areas that have
been excluded. He further stated the proposed fees are comparable to those collected in Larimer County,
Morgan County does not collect a fee, and Adams County is currently considering the option. Responding
to Chair Vaad, Mr. Hempen stated the intent of the 1:1 capacity to demand ratio is to maintain the current
level of service with improvements. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr.Warden stated this ordinance
has a provision for developers to do an independent transportation study to justify amending their fees.
He stated those studies will be reviewed by the Director of Planning Services to be adjusted accordingly.
He further stated there is also a provision for credit; however, the money collected must be spent on one
of the seven strategic roads or the credit does not apply. He further stated this is a plan, which is subject
to review and recalculation, as deemed necessary. If all of the designated roads are eliminated from one
of the quadrants,the County will be responsible for refunding the fees in that quadrant. However, if a new
road is designated in the same quadrant, then the previous fees collected can be re-designated. He
further stated the benefit area boundaries may be amended through a Code amendment, and it may be
helpful to have a cut off date to ensure the funds are spent in that benefit area before the boundaries are
amended. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Warden stated fees for a mobile home park are
significantly less; however, the national standards found there are typically fewer residents residing in a
mobile home, with less miles driven. Ms. Mika requested Section 20-1-230 be amended to replace
"Building Department" with "Planning Services," for consistency. She also requested the Board amend
Section 20-2-520 to replace the word "Committee" with "Director."
Marvin Dyer, Real Estate agent, stated he has received complaints from some of his clients stating the
Department of Planning Services rejected their traffic studies. He stated he is not opposed to the intent
of the impact fees; however, he feels the fees are too high and may encourage some businesses to annex
to avoid the fees. He stated some of the national figures are not consistent with the rates and costs in
Weld County, and the fees may prohibit some potential buyers from getting financed to build a new
structure. Mr. Dyer expressed concern with the refund process, and questioned the mechanism for
refunding the original payer if a property is sold. He also questioned who will be assessed if a new road
is designated as a strategic road, and how the fees will be effected by the surrounding Intergovernmental
Agreements.
Russell Stacey,developer of Vista Commercial,expressed concern with being required to pay road impact
fees on lots which will not likely impact any of the strategic roadways. Mr. Warden stated developers can
do an independent transportation study, and if they provide evidence that they are not impacting the
strategic roads, the fee can be waived.
Responding to questions from Mr. Dyer, Mr. Warden stated the transportation studies will be submitted
to the Director of Planning Services, with review assistance from the Director of Public Works. He stated
if there is an impasse, the matter will be reviewed by the Board of Commissioners. Ms. Mika explained
in most cases a transportation study is required as part of the application process, with the exception of
a vacant parcel in the previously developed subdivision. Commissioner Geile commented the formula will
be established for determining the road impact fee, if any, so developers should be aware of the fee up
front. Chair Vaad stated an impact fee will not be assessed if a development is located within municipal
boundaries. Mr.Warden stated any refunds will be paid to the person or company who pulled the building
permit, or to the successor or person in interest if the property has been sold. He further stated the
national standard was used to determine the amount of trips a land use generates; however, the number
of miles and net costs were based on local figures. Responding to Chair Vaad, Ms. Mika stated the
Longmont Intergovernmental Agreement deals with new development,and requires that referrals be sent
regarding developments in the City's Urban Growth Boundary; however, that will not impact the road
Minutes, December 2, 2002 2002-3105
Page 5 BC0016
impact fees. Commissioner Jerke concurred, and Commissioner Geile commented that following the
referral process, if a property is not annexed,the owner should be aware that there may be a road impact
fee assessed in the County. Commissioner Jerke moved to approve Code Ordinance#2002-11 on second
reading. Commissioner Masden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SECOND READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2002-12, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING,WITH AMENDMENTS,CHAPTER 2 ADMINISTRATION,CHAPTER 3 PERSONNEL,AND
CHAPTER 9 INFORMATION SERVICES OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE: Commissioner Geile moved
to read Code Ordinance#2002-12 by title only. Commissioner Long seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously. Mr. Warden read said title for the record. He stated this will include the diversity policy in
code,specify the use of heavy equipment on private property,and based on IRS and pension law changes,
the amount of allowed employee retirement hours was changed from 1644 to 1976. He further stated this
Ordinance also deals with the misuse of public property,and the treatment of confidential information. Mr.
Warden stated Chapter 9 will be replaced in its entirety to deal with the County's policy regarding Internet
access, and handheld devices. No public testimony was offered concerning this matter. Commissioner
Long moved to approve Code Ordinance #2002-12 on second reading. Commissioner Geile seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the consent
agenda. Code Ordinances#2002-10, #2002-11, and #2002-12 were approved on second reading.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD OUNTY,fOLORADO
��I min~` --!
ATTEST: ���r4 '�.,� ac
ILLa GI aad, Chai
Weld County Clerk toOn:
("Cm(Le, 1
David-E. g, Pro-Tem
BY: .
Deputy Clerk to the Board mac''
27,
J.. eile /
is Je e n
Robert D. Masden
Minutes, December 2, 2002 2002-3105
Page 6 BC0016
Hello