HomeMy WebLinkAbout20041253.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
APRIL 28, 2004
TAPE #2004-20
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, April 28, 2004, 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 Robert D. Masden, Chair
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Pro-Tem
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Carol A. Harding
Director of Finance and Administration, Donald D. Warden
MINUTES: Commissioner Vaad moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of April 26, 2004, as printed. Commissioner Jerke seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: Fritz Bucklen, Bucklen Equipment Company, expressed his concerns regarding the
Stormwater Management Fee,for which he received notification for$909.53. He stated no one realized how
much this would amount to before it was approved. In response to Mr.Warden,Mr. Bucklen stated he does
not like the fact that he is placed in the position of having to spend time appealing the fee. He stated the
Federal government has overextended itself in this area,and it is unconstitutional. Mr.Warden stated the
County had to appeal the fee for its own gravel pit areas, and that process does substantially reduce the
fee. Mr. Bucklen stated he should not have to appeal the fee, and the Board of Commissioners needs to
understand what is happening.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Vaad moved to approve the consent agenda as printed.
Commissioner Jerke seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
PRESENTATIONS:
RECOGNITION OF SERVICES, PLANNING COMMISSION-JOHN HUTSON AND TIM TRACY: Chair
Masden read the certificates recognizing Jim Hutson and Tim Tracy for services on the Planning
Commission. Neither were present to receive their awards.
2004-1253
BC0016
S- /7 -mot/
CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING FROM
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION-ACCOUNTING STAFF: Chair Masden read the
Certificate of Achievement being presented to the Accounting staff for excellence in financial reporting,
presented by the Government Finance Officers Association to government units and public employee
retirement systems whose Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) achieve the highest
standards in government accounting and financial reporting. Claud Hanes,Controller/Treasurer,and barb
Eurich,and Janet Reichert,Accounting Department, were present. Commissioner Geile stated this award
reflects the caliber of excellence provided by staff, including updates to established procedures. Mr.
Warden stated this award has been received by Weld County for 24 consecutive years, and this was the
first county in Colorado to ever receive the award. He also noted that this year was difficult because of
conversion to the GASBY-34 format, and it took a lot of staff effort, requiring a major change to the
accounting procedures and accounts regarding how to handle and report fixed assets. Chair Masden
stated government is a big business and it has to run correctly. Mr. Hanes stated he concurs with Mr.
Warden's statements, and he expressed his appreciation to staff for their efforts and involvement.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
BIDS:
PRESENT AND APPROVE ASBESTOS AND REGULATED MATERIALS ABATEMENT BID -
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRAITON: Pat Persichino, Director of General Services,read
the names of two vendors who submitted bids into the record, and stated this is for the project of
demolishing the Weld County Garage building. Mr. Persichino stated this is for asbestos and regulated
materials abatement,and he recommended the low bidder, LVI Environmental Services. Responding to
Commissioner Geile, Mr. Persichino stated this is for tanks and boilers and all the miscellaneous materials
that are present,and that the underground fuel tanks will be removed during Phase II. Commissioner Vaad
moved to accept the low bid,in the amount of$86,500. Commissioner Jerke seconded the motion,which
carried unanimously.
APPROVE COUNTY COURTS AND WORK RELEASE PHASE II, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND
ADMINISTRATION: Mr. Persichino stated this is for the project to convert the old Sheriff's Office and Jail
areas to Court space. He recommended approval of the low bid from Sun Construction and Design,in the
amount of$2,731,708.00. Commissioner Vaad moved to accept the low bid, as recommended by staff.
The motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Geile, carried unanimously. Responding to
Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Warden stated this amount falls slightly below the budgeted projection of
$3,000,000; however, he cautioned there may be minor change orders due to unknown conditions that
arise, such as the elevator.
WARRANTS: Donald Warden, Director of Finance and Administration, presented the following warrants
for approval by the Board:
All Funds $119,917.88
Electronic Transfers - All Funds $2,729,471.11
Commissioner Long moved to approve the warrants as presented by Mr.Warden. Commissioner Jerke
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Minutes, April 28, 2004 2004-1253
Page 2 BC0016
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT FOR LOCAL JUVENILE CRIME
ENFORCEMENT COALITION AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Ken Poncelow,Sheriff's Office,stated
the details of the grant are not yet available; however, this approval is for the intent to accept funds. Mr.
Warden stated the grant was discussed in a work session on April 26,2004. Commissioner Long moved
to approve said grant and authorize the Chair to sign the Intent to Accept Funds Form. Seconded by
Commissioner Vaad, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES-DEBORAH RYAN: Mike Sampson,
Assessor's Office,recommended denial of the petition and stated no useful information was included with
the request for abatement. He stated the petitioner is asking for the value to be based upon a Board of
Equalization decision when Sun Homes owned the property. He stated this is a mobile home purchased
in November of 2002; therefore, any pro-ratio of taxes should take place upon closing. He stated the
property is not assessed based on whether or not taxes were previously assessed. . Deborah Ryan,
property owner, stated she was told by Sun Homes that the taxes would be pro-rated; however, mobile
homes sitting on their lot are not assessed until they are sold. She purchased the home in November,and
indicated her documentation includes the Board of Equalization (BOE) petition, filed by Sun Homes for
Account #M0154403, indicating the Board of County Commissioners adjusted the value to zero. She
referred to a letter dated November 7,2003,from James Peyton, Attorney for Sun Homes, stating under
the provisions of Section 39-5-204, C. R. S.,the tax assessment against Ms. Ryan should have been pro-
rated so that she was only required to pay property tax for that portion of the year she was the owner.
Commissioner Jerke stated he recalls the Board of Equalization discussion,and that the Board agreed that
mobile homes on the sales lot were comparable to demonstrators,and the real estate taxes do not kick in
until the property is purchased. Mr.Sampson stated this is an altogether different issue,and if Sun Ho'mes
were now the petitioner,he would argue that issue;however,Sun Homes is no longer the responsible party
for the mobile home and refunds or abatements cannot be granted to someone other than the one who was
responsible for paying those taxes. Mr. Sampson stated that, since she purchased the property in
November of 2002,any pro-ratio between Sun Homes and Ms.Ryan should have taken place upon closing,
and she does not have the legal status to file an appeal for abatement against the property prior to her
purchase. Bruce Barker,CountyAttorney,stated the BOE appeal presented by Ms.Ryan was one of three
mobile homS which were appealed by Sun Homes. He stated it is the buyer's obligation to make certain
that pro-ration of taxes occurs at closing,and to ensure the taxes have been paid for the entire year or the
buyer is receiving credit for it, and will later have a bill to pay. Mr. Barker stated Ms. Ryan purchased the
property in November,2003,and Sun Homes did not appeal to BOE until the following year on three other
mobile homes; therefore, he agrees with Mr. Sampson. Mr. Sampson reiterated pro-ration should have
occurred at closing,and it is not appropriate to allow someone other than the property owner to appeal the
taxes for that period of time. Ms. Ryan reiterated that once sold, the 2002 taxes went on the record, and
she did not see that tax record. She stated she has paid half of her2003 taxes; however,she indicated the
procedure is very confusing and she relied upon the information given to her by Sun Homes and Mr.Peyton.
Ms. Ryan stated she cannot understand the statutes and information available regarding this issue,and it
has been very confusing and expensive to try to appeal the taxes. Commissioner Jerke stated the Cdunty
acts as an extension of the State government in matters such as taxation. Responding to Commissioner
Geile, Ms. Ryan stated she relied on the information of Sun Homes and Mr. Peyton regarding the closing
statement and the fact that they told her no taxes were due. Ms. Sampson stated Sun Homes is giving
incorrect information,and stated the County does tax the mobile home park for land and that lot homes are
taxed. He stated Sun Homes knew there was an outstanding tax bill, however, they did not include the
amounts in the closing. Unfortunatelythe taxpayer gets stuck with the bill because the developer or mobile
home owner did not pay. Responding to Mr. Barker, Mr. Sampson stated 2003 was the first time Sun
Homes appealed its taxes based on this argument, and Sun Homes owned the mobile home for ten
months. Mr. Sampson stated Sun Homes was making an assumption that this assessed value would be
adjusted;however, if an individual owns ten properties,he cannot assume the same determination will be
Minutes, April 28, 2004 2004-1253
Page 3 BC0016
made in all ten cases. Each case must be individually filed and go through the process. Commissioner
Jerke stated that with the assertion made by Sun Homes before the precedent of the BOE decision last
summer, and.with the credits and debits shown on the closing statement and the tax statement showing
the taxes due from the 2002 calendar year, Ms. Ryan seems to have a very strong case to collect the back
taxes from Sun Homes. He stated he does not want to open the issue up any further than was discussed
last summer in the Sun Homes appeal when the Board was focused on the matter, and he does feel it
appropriate to go back to taxes from the prior year before that case was heard. Commissioner Geile stated
the Colorado Real Estate Commission should be notified of the action of Sun Homes,since its responsibility
is to insure real estate transactions are handled in a legal and ethical manner. Responding to Ms. Ryan's
inquiry, Mr. Sampson stated the taxes are overdue, and explained the fees and penalties assessed.
Commissioner Geile moved to deny the petition for abatement. The motion, which was seconded by
Commissioner Vaad, carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES-H AND H HOLDINGS,C/O JIM AND
MARSHA HARRIS: Mr.Sampson presented a packet,marked Exhibit A,indicating the subject property and
five comparable sales,as well as income information. He reviewed the specifics of the comparable sales
and stated that,the average of all five sales for improvements only is$207 per square foot. If applied to the
subject property of 984 square feet,the improvements value would be$410,688. If the Assessor's value
of the land at$101,790 were added,the total value would be$512,478. Mr. Sampson also stated that,the
petitioner paid over$200,000 for the land; however, it is currently being assessed at only$100,000. Mr.
Sampson stated there is no correlation between a retail space next door and the mini-lube,and the second
page after Sale#1 demonstrates that. He stated the petitioner is contending that the business is included
in the Big O sale; however, it was property and improvements only. Whether a customer base is included
and how much it is worth is intrinsic and cannot be valued. Mr. Sampson stated the value has increased
since it was built. He stated that, looking at the income approach, based on sale #1, which is a lease
between a third party and a property owner in 1992, at$48,000 per year. Figuring a 33 percent increase
in the lease, multiplied by the square feet of the subject property, and divided by a twelve percent
capitalization rate, the value comes to $425,240 estimated market value for the subject property. Mr.
Sampson further stated the property is currently assessed at$416,000,which includes the land,for which
they paid $202,000. Mr. Sampson stated he also looked at the average price per square foot, from an
assessment perspective,and determined that the average of all the sale properties is$155 per square foot,
and the subject property is at$158 per square foot. He stated the value may not be 100 percent correct;
however,no information was received to prove the value was out of line. The information presented by the
petitioner was different in the type of business,and there is a very specific difference. Mr.Sampson stated
the assessed value is fairly close,and the contention that the property value has not increased is incorrect;
therefore,he recommended denial of the petition. Responding to Commissioner Celle,Mr.Sampson stated
when using the income approach,no consideration was given to the expenses,since it is a net lease,and
all expenses, taxes, and minor maintenance are included in the lease.
Marsha Harris,petitioner,stated she strongly disagrees with the statement that the cost of Blue Sky,which
is the customer base,does not have to do with the purchase of the business. She stated when they were
going through the process of starting a new business, the difference in price of existing businesses with
an established customer base was significantly higher. She stated it cost$219,072 to build the building in
1998, and the appraiser she spoke to said commercial real estate increases marginally, or two percent a
year. She stated no improvements have been made to the property in the past five years; however, the
taxes have increased 62 percent because of the fact that other businesses, located outside of Evans got
good prices when sold because of established customer bases. Jim Harris,petitioner,stated the business
next door, Big O Tires, had taxes that decreased during the same period of time. He stated the lot size of
Big O Tires is approximately the same size, and the building is twice the size. Mr. Sampson stated the
construction cost and lot cost is higher than the value currently placed on the property. Responding to
CommissionerJerke, Ms. Harris stated the building should be around$200,000,and the land cost includes
Minutes, April 28, 2004 2004-1253
Page 4 BC0016
the back lot. Mr. Sampson clarified the petitioners paid$76,000 for the back lot,$202,000 for this lot,and
$219,000 for construction of the building,for a total of$421,000 for the subject property. Responding to
Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Sampson stated the subject property is currently assessed at $416,000.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Sampson stated the lot is 16,965 square feet, and Ms. Harris
stated the parcels were split for loan purposes. After discussion,CommissionerJerke stated that an actual
cost of$421,000 and three of the four comparable sales being above that value does support the value
currently placed on the property. Mr.Sampson stated the value of the back lot was reduced because it was
not tied to the front and would have to be accessed from 23rd Avenue. Chair Masden stated that apparently
the assessment finally caught up with the value placed on the property,and Commissioner Jerke stated,
based on the petitioner's figures of what was paid for the property,they have gotten a good deal for the past
five years. He further stated the dissatisfaction of property owners is not usually based on the value of a
particular property,but on the GallagherAmendment,which requires commercial properties to be assessed
at 29 percent. After further discussion, Ms. Harris argued that values have been decreasing, and stated
they had the business appraised, and the customer base was valued at$600,000. She stated if sale#4
for$744,700,included even a$500,000 customer base,that was a huge part of the value. Commissioner
Geile stated that, using the income approach, he is satisfied the value is fair with a 12 percent cap rate
being applied; the value of the land as stated by the Assessor in the area at the time of the assessment
being$6.00 per foot; and the value of the building at construction cost of$219,000,the total is$421,000.
Therefore, he moved to deny the petition. The motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Jerke,
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.
(A11 % 4P \
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS '
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Robert D. Masden, Chair
`� . ty to the Boar
William H. J e, Pro-Tem
B . ��s!v�
Deputy Clerk to - Board 77
M. J. ile
David . Long
Glenn Vaad
Minutes, April 28, 2004 2004-1253
Page 5 BC001¢
CITY OF GREELEY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
r.mk wo,.w uR,rm�e, 1001 9th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 336-4074
I
An APWA Accredited Uu ) j
Public Works Department f—
April, 2004 ' l 1.
Service Address: 804 N 25 AV
BUCKLEN EQUIPMENT CO
804 N 25 AV
GREELEY, CO 80634
Dear Weld County Resident/ Property Owner: Customer#: 043-773751-01
This letter is to provide you with advance notification of your new Stormwater Utility fee that is based on the
size and land use of your property. This notification is not a bill. The County Commissioners of Weld County
established Greeley Service Area Stormwater Utility and Boundaries, as defined in Weld County Code
Chapter 8 Sec. 8-7-10. On January 3, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners and the governing bodies of
the City of Greeley, Colorado entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement for Joint enforcement of the
Federal Mandated Stormwater Management Programs, to develop, implement and perform the six (6)
stormwater management programs listed below:
1. Public Education and Outreach
2. Public Participation/Involvement
3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
4. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
5. Post-Construction Stormwater Management and
6. Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations.
The new Stormwater Utility Fee was implemented over a year ago to Greeley residents, and is now being
assessed to certain Weld County property owners that are adjacent to or surrounded by the Greeley city limits,
as defined in County Code Chapter 8 as the Greeley Service Area Stormwater Utility and are included in the
Intergovernmental Agreement. The stormwater utility fee is being imposed on every lot or parcel of land within
this service area. T . _Lukenonable and is necessary to fund the operation, maintenance,
administration and or a functions of this established service area This utility wiff lso fund the City Of
Greeley stormwater
f
ac t es that may beestla operation,
bl shed th nthe administration
Greeley Service Area. Per the Intergovernmental Agreement, the
City of Greeley will serve as the County's collecting agent for the stormwater utility fees as authorized by Weld
County Code Chapter 8. The proceeds from the stormwater utility fee will be retained by the City Of Greeley as
full compensation for the management of the programs specified above and in both the Intergovernmental
Agreement and Weld County Code Chapter 8.
Please review the following property ownership, land use, and square footage information. Remember this is
not a bill but it is your opportunity to verify the accuracy of the Stormwater Utility billing information before the
first Stormwater bill is sent.
Area of Property: 1,568,160
Land Use Description: OTHER
Stormwater Utility Fee (per 30 day period): $909.53
Hello