HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020684.tiff CORRESPONDENCE RESPONSE RECENED
DEPARTMENT OF Ptak, wv11z JUN 1 9 2001
WJGLis OELD RKS DE
** * PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN THREE DAYS.** * DEPT
IF RESPONSE WILL BE DELAYED,
PLEASE NOTIFY"CTB GROUP" BY E-MAIL
OF EXPECTED DATE FOR RESPONSE.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Narrative: � —e--
5 i l�fta w r/1%LQC4-5 Gr42.24-5/ cvi...'
I� l w CL s chaletJ
MG RM BJ DL GV
BOARD ACTION: (Initial by Approval) `r Agree with Recommendation / V // VI .7
Worksession
METHOD OF RESPONSE:
- Board Action
Work Session
Letter(Attached)
- Telephone Call
- No Response (explain)
Department Head Signature
M:\CAROL\OPMAN\RDCOM P2
U 2002-0684
WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
�A 915 TENTH STREET
}� \ P.O. BOX 758
"�"� GREELEY, CO 80632
WEB SITE: www.co.weld.co.us
"lige
PHONE: (970) 336-7235
FAX: (970) 352-0242
COLORADO January 24, 2002
RECEIVED
Mr. John Jervis JAN 2 4 200
7.
P.O. Box 572 WELD COUNTY
PUPUC WORKS DEFY
9780 WCR 57
Keenesburg, CO 80643-0572
Re: Possible Local Improvement District for
Improvements to WCR 57
Dear Mr. Jervis:
This letter is a follow-up to your discussions last Fall with the Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County regarding the possibility of initiating a local improvement district ("LID") for
the improvement of Weld County Road("WCR") 57, extending north from WCR 20 for
approximately one (1)mile. I apologize for the delay in this follow-up.
Colorado Revised Statute 30-20-603 authorizes a board of county commissioners to create a LID
for improvements to "any street . . . in the unincorporated area of a county." A copy of that
statute is enclosed. Subsections (2) and (3)provide for two different methods of getting the LID
started. The first method, set forth in Subsection (2), is to have a board of county commissioners
declare by resolution that the LID and its improvements are authorized. There, the owners of
properties in the proposed assessment unit which "would bear more than one-half of the total
proposed assessments" within the proposed assessment unit may then protest the LID, in which
case the board does not proceed further with the LID. The second method, set forth in
Subsection (3), is to have a petition submitted to a board of county commissioners which
requests that the LID be created. Such petition must be signed by "the owners of property to be
assessed for more than one-half of the entire costs estimated by the board to be assessed" for the
improvement project. What is interesting about both methods is that it appears the "assessment
unit," or the properties which would be paying the entire costs, may be less than all of the
properties which may be benefitted by the improvements.
I recall that there was discussion last Fall that the costs of acquiring the right-of-way could be
included in the costs of the improvements. My review of the LID statutes, however, does not
provide me with any direct authority for this proposition. I will research the matter further.
Letter, Jervis
January 24, 2002
Page 2
I have been advised by Mr. Frank Hempen, Jr., Director of the Weld County Department of
Public Works, that he estimates the total costs of the improvements to the road to be $50,000.
If you wish to discuss the matter of the possible LID further or if you have any questions
regarding this letter or the enclosed, please feel free to call me at (970) 356-4000, ext. 4390.
Sincerely,rube T.T. Barker—
Weld County Attorney
Enc.
pc: Mike Geile
Bill Jerke
Rob Masden
Frank Hempen, Jr.
Don Warden
6/15/01
Mr. Bill Jerke
Weld County Commissioner
POBox 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Re: The % mile section of WCR 57 north of WCR 20
Dear Mr. Jerke
We have a problem down here on this section of road. The problem has
already caused tension among neighbors, recently this has involved the
Sheriff's Department and even escalated to shouting matches. Right now
the problem is spiraling out of control. Shortly, if nothing is done, it would
be fair to predict, law suites involving the County will become necessary.
The problem was either caused or allowed to happen by the County's
Planning and Zoning Department. Whether it is due to mismanagement
or no management I cannot say at this time. The result has been a road
that can never become a county road, including maintenance, due to
inadequate Planning and Zoning control over its development. In its
current form it is unfair and unmanageable and is already sparking anger
and frustration among various property owners.
I am not an expert at navigating our County Government, and I have
already become frustrated and cynical in trying to communicate this
problem over the last months. This will explain the broad distribution list for
this letter. I am hoping to find the people that should be aware of this
problem and that might contribute to a solution.
I am addressing this request for help to you, Mr. Jerke, since I had spoken
to you on the phone regarding County communications on this issue.
Maybe this seems a bit absurd, but there is a prairie fire smoldering down
here and it would be most appreciated if it could be dealt with now prior
to any further damage.
A BREIF HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM:
The western half of section 14 was divided into four 80 acre parcels in
1996. Each parcel had a 30 foot County Road Easement taken off the
western boarder to account for an access road. A single lane, 10 foot
wide road was centered in this easement, built by the subdivider_ The
road extended 3/4 mile north of WCR 57 from WCR 20.
Then, in 1999, a Mr. Madsen subdivided the eastern half of section 15 into
six parcels, which is now seven and is soon expected to be eight. The
County permitted him to do this without providing easements for their
access road. Mr. Madsen improved our single lane road to a double lane
by adding a ten foot wide section next to our road, inside the section 14
easement. He did this while explaining to the property owners that he
was working according to County Guidelines and Requirements to
achieve County maintenance.
ISSUES:
Obviously, Mr. Madsen intentionally mislead the property owners. We did
not believe that we needed to trust him because we trusted the County
Planning and Zoning Department to be in control. Our error?
This is a mess with no chance that the owners will ever be able to correct
it. Only the County can do it. Currently, eight families rely on this section of
road for access to their properties. Soon it will be nine. Three families lost
thirty feet of their property to provide it, and five other families have full
legal rights to use it, yet no responsibility for upkeep. And now, one owner
intends to control traffic through the installation of various obstacles.
This is the explosive issue. Now there is a section 14 owner that regards
their part of the easement as private property that is subject to their
exclusive control. They have assembled various obstacles ( a trash
dumpster and a one foot deep perpendicular trench they call a speed
bump) within the easement area. The Sheriff's Department has
determined that they are within their rights to do so. Thus, we expect them
to erect additional obstacles in the future. What will other property owners
do? This issue is already quite emotional as you can imagine and this
section 14 owner is well known for combative behavior. In other words, this
problem is spiraling out of hand right now.
Another example is the section 15 family at the NW corner of WCR 57 and
20. Their house was built so close to the road that if the positioning of the
road was ever corrected, as Mr. Hempen requires for County
Maintenance, the road would run through their front yard. They have also
built extensive fencing within the corrected easement area. Since they
only use about 50 yards of the road, they will never agree to have the
road rerouted through their front yard, to move their fencing, or to draw
up a new deed to allow the easements to be corrected. Would you
blame them? Catch 22, ...checkmate?
This will give you an idea of the extent of the mess that has been created.
It almost sounds to me like a diabolical plan hatched by the County to
insure that the County would never have to take over maintenance
responsibility of this little section of road or anything north of it. If so, mission
accomplished...
Unfortunately, the problem is not simple or comical and we do not have
the luxury of time to wait patiently for a response that could take months.
If there is nothing that you can do, we need to know so we can seek
other remedies. Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Y.` rs truly,
� oh J rvis
PO: 572 (9780 WCR 57)
Keenesburg, Co. 80643
Work phone 303-302-7939 (8:00AM to 5:00PM), Home phone 303-732-
4558
Distribution list:
Mr. Rob Masden, County Commissioner Distr. 3
Mr. Mike Geile, County Commissioner At-Large
Ms. Jody Malone, County Council Distr. 3
Mr. Dwaine Kurtz, County Council At-Large
Mr. Mitch Martin, County Council At-Large
Mr. Ed Jordan, Sheriff
Mr. Bruce Barker, County Attorney
Ms. Monica Danials-Mika, Planning and Zoning
Mr. Frank Hempen, Public Works
Hello