HomeMy WebLinkAbout800645.tiff 1
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2 GREELEY, COLORADO
3
Docket No. 80-56
4
5
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER )
THE SERVICE PLAN OF THE ) REPORTER' S TRANSCRIPT
6 PROPOSED BRIGHTON AREA FIRE )
PROTECTION DISTRICT .
7
8
APPEARANCES
Edward A. Brown , Attorney at Law
10 105 Bridge Street
Brighton, Colorado 80601,
11
for the Applicant.
12
Weld County Commissioners :
13
Bill Kirby , Chairman
14 Norman Carlson
Lydia Dunbar
15 Leonard L. Roe
June Steinmark
16
Also present: Weld County Assistant Attorney Russ Anson.
= 17
0
18 This matter came on for public hearing before
= 19 the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado,
e 20 at 2 : 00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 3 , 1980 , in the First
21 Floor Assembly Room, Weld County Centennial Center , 915
V
22 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado.
23
24 Ardeth Wine
Certified Shorthand Reporter
25 Fort Collins , Colorado
600645
spot)-27
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 CHAIRMAN BILL KIRBY : Call the hearing to
3 order. Would the attorney please make the record? We
4 better call roll first; Clerk please call the roll.
5 CLERK: Norman Carlson .
6 COMMISSIONER NORMAN CARLSON: Here.
7 CLERK: Lydia Dunbar.
8 COMMISSIONER LYDIA DUNBAR: Here.
9 CLERK: Leonard Roe .
10 COMMISSIONER LEONARD ROE : Here.
11 CLERK: June Steinmark .
12 COMMISSIONER JUNE STEINMARK: Here.
13 CLERK : Bill Kirby.
14 CHAIRMAN KIRBY : Here.
15 Now would the attorney please make the record.
16 MR. RUSS ANSON: This is Docket #80-56 . This
17 is a public hearing for consideration by the Board of
18 the service plan of the proposed Brighton Area Fire Pro-
, 19 tection District. This hearing is pursuant to Special
° 20 District Control Act, Section 32-1-201, that ' s CRS 1973 .
21 Notice of this hearing has been published on
22 August 14, 1980 , August 21, 1980 and August 28, 1980 , in
23 the Johnstown Breeze.
24 According to Section 32-1-205 , the Board, in
25 considering whether or not to approve the service plan,
3
1 shall consider the following critera. In specific , the
2 Board may disapprove the service plan submitted by the
3 petitioners if it finds upon satisfactory evidence one or
4 more of the following:
5 A) There is insufficient existing and
6 projected need for the organized service in the
7 area to be serviced by the proposed district;
8 The existing service in the area to be
9 served by the proposed district is adequate for
10 present and projected need;
11 Adequate service is or will be available
12 to the area through municipal annexation by other
13 existing municipal or quasi-municipal corpora-
14 tions within a reasonable time and on a compar-
15 able basis ;
16 The proposed service district is incapable
17 of providing economical and sufficient service
18 to the area within its proposed boundaries ;
19 The area to be included in the proposed
district does not have or will not have the
20
21 financial ability to discharge the proposed
indebtedness on a reasonable basis ;
22
23 The facility and service standards of
24 the proposed districts are incompatible with
25 the facility and service standards of adjacent
4
1 municipalities and service districts ;
2 The proposal is not in substantial
3 compliance with the Master Plan adopted pursuant
4 to Section 30-28-110, CRS 1973;
5 The proposal is not in compliance with
6 any duly adopted county, regional or state long-
7 range water quality management plan for the area.
8 CHAIRMAN KIRBY: Tom, would you proceed.
9 MR. THOMAS E . HONN: Mr. Chairman, it was moved
10 by Don Billings the following be introduced for passage
11 by the Planning Commission :
12 BE IT RESOLVED by the Weld County Planning
13 Commission the following be adopted by the County
14 Board of Commissioners . Petition of Brighton
15 Area Fire Protection District in the City of
16 Brighton for creation of a special district be
17 recommended favorably to the Board of County
0
18 Commissioners for the following reasons :
19 It is the opinion of the Planning Comis-
20 sion that the proposal meets the criteria in
• 21 Section 32-1-205 of the Colorado Revised
22 Statues because of prior existence of the fire
23 protection services.
24 Motion was seconded by Jerry Kiefer. The vote
25 for passage , Jerry Kiefer, Bette Kountz , Irma White , Don
5
1 Billings , Bob Ehrlich , Wilbur Wafel, Chuck Carlson.
2 CHAIRMAN KIRBY : Okay. Would the applicant
3 please come forward.
4 MR. EDWARD A. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, my name
5 is Edward A. Brown; I 'm an attorney representing the
6 applicant, and with me are Ronald Hellbusch, the City
7 Manager of the City of Brighton, and Ken Timmerman, who' s
8 the President of the present Board of Directors of the
9 Brighton Area Fire Protection District.
10 The proposal simply is to include the city of
11 Brighton within the district. When the district was
12 formed in 1961, prior to that time , the city had provided
13 fire protection service for the surrounding area at a
14 cost that was very minimal , and it wasn 't sufficient to
15 really maintain good fire protection, so we did form a
16 district in 1961 . It did not include the city at that time.
17 Now for the past couple or three years , the
18 Board of the district and the members of the city council
19 have met and discussed and met with DRCOG and consulted
20 outside sources and of course of their own knowledge
21 know that the fire protection will be much more efficient
22 and effective if the city is included and we form a new
23 district to include it, with a fire prevention board that
24 is oriented towards fire protection and which is more in
25 keeping with the normal districts throughout the state.
6
1 We don ' t intend to change much, frankly,
2 from what we ' re doing now. The city has provided the
3 district fire protection under intergovernmental contract .
4 The city at the present time owns all of the equipment;
5 the volunteers basically live in the city . But because of
6 the expansion out into the rural area of housing develop-
7 ments , as you are well aware of, why , it makes fire
8 protection more critical and needed and probably in a
9 more professional and certainly to be expanded, and probably
10 looking at another eight people in the future.
11 And so we propose to have two elections
12 simultaneously, one to dissolve the present district by
13 the voters living in the present district , and then one
14 to form a new district to be voted upon both by the resi-
15 dents of the city and the present residents of the present
16 district. And assuming both pass , then the new district
17 will be formed.
G
18 The taxes , as we 've been operating to date,
19 the city pays half the charge, the cost, and the district
20 pays half the cost. And while there may be a need for an
21 increase of revenue because of expanded fire protection ,
22 it doesn ' t look to be substantial .
23 I believe you have a map. We ' re not going
24 to change the territory of the present district except to
25 include the city. There is a small area in Weld County
7
1 that' s been served by the district since 1961 and will
2 continue to be served. Technically, we felt we had to
3 comply with this statute, even though it ' s not the normal
4 type of a service district plan that you ' d see, certainly.
5 We believe that we do meet all the criteria
6 and that it will be a fine thing for the area. So if you
7 have any questions , Mr. Hellbusch or Mr. Timmerman would
8 be available to answer them, or perhaps myself.
9 CHAIRMAN KIRBY : Okay, thank you. Are there
10 any questions for the applicants?
11 Is there anyone in the audience that wishes
12 to speak in opposition to this district?
13 MR. HONN: I think probably just for an
14 additional piece of information , the portion, the small
15 portion of the total district that does lie within Weld
16 County, okay, exists today .
17 The actual modification that would be felt
18 within the Weld County portion of the fire district is
19 the very small area, and I 'm not sure even in terms of a
20 couple of square blocks , that has recently been annexed
21 into the city that now is going, you know, that portion
22 of the Weld County area is actually going back as a fire
23 district.
24 Most of the city that ' s affected is actually
Y5 down in the Adams County portion , but there is a small area
8
1 that is currently in the city limits of Brighton that
2 will be specifically affected.
3 COMMISSIONER ROE : But the current district
4 does cover a portion of Weld County.
5 MR. BONN: That ' s correct, and that ' s not
6 changing.
7 COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: The portion of Weld
8 County that is now within the city limits of Brighton,
g are they being taxed by both the present fire district
10 and the city?
11 MR. BROWN : Well, they shouldn ' t be.
12 How long have they been in?
13 MR. HELLBUSCH : Two years .
14 MR. BROWN: Well, ordinarily , the Portion
15 that ' s annexed could petition the district to be excluded.
16 I 'm not sure whether that ' s happened or not.
17 MR. TIMMERMAN: I don ' t hardly think they 've
18 petitioned out. Hyde Industrial Park is the only one that
19 would be affected.
20 MR. BROWN : If they haven ' t, they should have .
21 That' s happened before , of course .
22 COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: I 'd like to ask one
23 thing. How about the expenses , how do you work that out
24 between the city and this new fire district that you would
25 add the services? How do you work that out , the expense
9
1 part?
2 MR. BROWN: Of operating?
3 COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Yes , operation of the
4 district .
5 MR. BROWN : Uh-huh. It ' s the same mill levy
6 throughout the entire district, which would include the
7 city of Brighton .
8 COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: I see.
9 MR. BROWN: As it is now, the city has its
10 own mill levy, and the district has its own .
11 COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Right, right, and you' re
12 going to combine the two?
13 MR. BROWN: That ' s right.
14 CHAIRMAN KIRBY : Any further comments from
15 anyone?
16 MR. BROWN: Here ' s another member of the Board
17 of Directors .
18 CHAIRMAN KIRBY: I thought he looked like a
19 friendly face.
20 All right.
21 COMMISSIONER ROE: Mr. Chairman, I would move
P2 that we approve the service plan for the proposed Brighton
23 Area Fire Protection District.
P4 COMMISSIONER CARLSON: Second.
25 CHAIRMAN KIRBY : It ' s been moved by Leonard Roe ,
10
1 seconded by Norman Carlson that we approve the service
2 plan of the proposed Brighton Area Fire Protection
3 District. Is there any further discussion?
4 All in favor say aye; opposed, nay. Motion
5 carried unanimously.
6 Any other business to come before this
7 hearing? Hearing adjourned.
8 (Proceedings adjourned at 2 : 15 p.m. , Wednesday,
9 September 3 , 1980 . )
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
= 17
S
18
19
° 20
21
22
23
24
25
11
1
2
3 REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE
4
5
6
7 I , ARDETH WINE, Certified Shorthand Reporter
8 within the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the
9 foregoing proceedings , Pages 2 through 10 , were taken in
10 stenotypy by me at the time and place hereinbefore set
11 forth and were thereafter reduced to typewritten form by
12 me personally , and that the foregoing is a true and correct
13 transcription of my stenotype notes then and there taken.
14 Dated this 5th day of September 1980 .
15
16
17
18 ti Ali( Jam(-`l/ U.(A,L¢J
Certified Shorthand Reporter
19
° 20
0
21
22
23
24
25
Hello