HomeMy WebLinkAbout982331.tiff WELD COUNTY
coy ,i-ctnycps
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
1m9m nov 16 Ali 9: 58 Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
CLERK October 29, 1998
Weld Board of County Comnnaiki rPC '
ED
P 0 Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Busker Dairy
Ladies and gentlemen:
The application for a Use by Special Review permit by Scott Busker to increase the size of
his dairy herd highlights some of the inconsistencies in the policies and actions of the Weld
County commissioners. This is the third such application in this area in the last year and
one half or so. The Gregerson and Bella applications were approved by the
commissioners. The Busker application appears to be doomed to failure. Why?
Governing the processing of the Busker application is an ICGA [Interim Coordinated
Governmental Agreement] between Weld County government and the Town of Firestone.
This agreement dictates, in essence, that any proposal for "development" within its urban
growth boundaries must be referred to Firestone. The owners of the property must sign an
agreement with Firestone to annex their land to that Town and the town government must
approve of its future use. Town government representatives have been quoted as being
opposed to the proposed use. Thus, it appears Busker will not receive approval to enlarge
his herd.
Inconsistently, the Gregerson Dairy near Firestone proposed a similar herd expansion last
year. It was approved by the county commissioners even though the same ICGA was in
effect at that time. I can find no evidence that the Gregerson application was referred to
the Town of Firestone or that town sought to enforce the ICGA in this case.
Recently, a similar application by the Bella Dairy for herd expansion near Platteville was
approved by the county commissioners despite strenuous opposition by that town's
residents and government. Unfortunately for Platteville, it did not have an ICGA with the
County. If the ICGA between the County and Firestone was agreed to by the
commissioners on the principle that it was for the public good, why wasn't the same
principle applied in the Platteville case even though there wasn't a formal agreement?
It is certain that the commissioners will come up with some rationalization in an attempt to
justify their actions, but their inconsistencies will remain obvious. Meanwhile the Busker
dairy may be forced out of business, given the unfeasibility of smaller dairy operations in
the present economy.
Very truly yours,
7-0c477:2
John S. Folsom
PS: Please make this letter part of the record of any proceedings regarding the Busker Use
by Special Review application.
0. mil-F\\��s 982331
WELD COUNTY
on' ,1 71,-)"FP>
7050 Loma Linda Court
1998 MY 16 All 9 57 Longmont CO 80504
CLERK 303 833 2992
October 29, 1998
Weld Board of County C Pirii �i A�
P 0 Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Financing of County buildings
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We sleep at night, relaxed in the knowledge that the Tabor Amendment gives us the right
to vote on the capital financing of any county or municipal project. We, the people, will
decide whether bonds will be issued to build schools, jails, recreation centers, etc. We,
also, are confident that counties, towns and cities would not permitted to issue bonds to
build industrial, commercial and business facilities for private corporations.
Weld County government does not agree with your beliefs that projects should be
approved by the people and not run by a private enterprise. So far, County government is
accomplishing this in two ways:
1. The Weld County Finance Corporation has been created by County government to
finance through the issuance debt creating securities [bonds] to, so far, pay for the
building of an administration building and a jail. The board of directors of this corporation
consists of the Weld County Director of Finance/Administration, County Attorney and
County Director of General Services. Weld County residents were not given the
opportunity to vote to approve or disapprove the building of these facilities.
2. Presently, County government is in the process of issuing bonds to pay for a health
care facility to be privately operated [Ordinance 200A]. A public vote is avoided through
the provisions of the County and Municipality Development Revenue Act [29-3-
101CRS]which permits any project use that complies with the vague requirement of being
for a"public purpose"which includes any of those mentioned above.
The question is not of the legality of the use of these devises to avoid a public vote on the
projects. These devises avoid the restrictions of the TABOR amendment in that,
supposedly, they will no incur any additional tax responsibilities on the people. This
remains to be seen after one of these projects fails, and the courts sift through the
intricacies of the legal boilerplate to decide if their is any public liability for debts incurred
by such failure. The question is not whether these: particular projects are necessary and
provide a public benefit. The main point of all this is the perception that County
government thinks it knows best what is good for County residents and the County
residents cannot be relied on to decide what is best for themselves by voting on these
projects.
Very)truly yours, _
7 John S. Folsom 29-3-1012.doc
Please make this letter part of the record of any proceedings relating to Ordinance 200.
� 33 /
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
November 12, 1998
Bruce Barker, Esq.
Weld County Attorney
PO Box 1948
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Vacancy on Weld County Council
Dear Mr. Barker:
Word is circulating that the Weld County Council has been given the authority by the
Weld County Home Rule Charter to appoint a member in the case of a vacancy. Section
13-7[1] does state: "A vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the remaining members of
the Council. However, section 13-7[2] goes on to specifically define `vacancy' as follows:
"A vacancy shall exist when a Councilman dies, resigns, is removed from office, moves
from the district from which elected, is incapacitated, recalled, or becomes a candidate for
a county elected [sic]office or an employee of the county".
Section13-7[2] does not define the case of no one petitioning for or running for election to
the Council from a district or at large as being a `vacancy'. The Charter also does not give
any person or persons the authority to decide, in the case of no one being elected to a
Council seat, how the filling of that seat is to be determined. The Charter is very specific
as to what a vacancy is. It does not permit or allow for any other circumstance to
constitute a 'vacancy'.
Since the Charter does not specify a method for filling a Council position in these
circumstances, we must fall back on the State statutes to make that determination. CRSI-
12-205 states: "All vacancies in any county office, except that of county commissioner,
shall be filled by appointment by the board of county commissioners ". However,
CRS1-12-207[1] reads: "Any vacancy on a nonpartisan board shall be filled by
appointment by the remaining director or directors" [italics, mine]. Since Words and
Phrases does not refer you to definitions for board or director and in the Charter they are
referred to as councilman or council member, 1-12-207[1] might be construed to not be
applicable in this case. West court decisions might clarify the situation as to possible
precedents.
It is important that the ruling basis in law be determined for filling the place on the
Council. As a practical matter, the result will be the same, about which I don't have to
elaborate.
Very truly yours,
John S. Folsom
PC: BOCC eld County Council 7;;;1
/ erv1orc_= -� 9��331
VJ.LD COETY
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
1p9$ I°OV 16 AM 9: 58 Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
CLERK November 13, 1998
Weld Board of County Commissl& �r ME BO 1.!8
P 0 Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: County investment losses
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Recently several newspapers have run stories on the losses that Weld County government
sustained resulting from ill considered investments with the Investment Trust of Colorado.
For example the Greeley Tribune reported that the County received $935,000 as part of a
settlement and the Rocky Mountain News reported that Jefferson County had returned
$350,000 of profits it had made through the Trust, and that Weld County is owed
$5,000,000 in principle and interest.
We all make mistakes, even our financial experts. However, we can learn and profit from
our mistakes and not repeat them. It is to be hoped that Weld County government has put
in place safeguards so that catastrophic investments such as this are avoided in the future.
There are secured investments available whereby there will be assets that can be seized to
insure repayment of principle.
To reassure Weld citizens, it would be wise for Weld government to make public what
safeguards have been enacted or, if they have not, to draw them up and enact them as a
priority. Additionally, it would seem prudent, to instill confidence, to provide the funding
necessary to the Weld County Council to appoint a specialist to conduct a performance
audit as provided for in the Weld County Charter under section 13-8[7].
Very truly yours,
� �/ J
John S. Folsom
PC: Weld County Council
fraaud.doc / /� 7J� / / C
/14; 4c-a/ Ll!-? tc- c-- .i1l7a 1 /e-je/ "Ge,L 7fQ/
�Q
r\ 1�\�\ (25. 33 1
Hello