PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 1993

SUBDIVISIONS

(#303, #305, #306)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with John Barnett, Director of Planning. Chairman Hotchkiss presided; Commissioner Duvall was present. Commissioner Disney will be out of town until August 23, 1993. Also present were: Al Kadera, Subdivision Administrator; Carol Evans and Richael Michels, Planners; Russ Legg, Development Processing Administrator; John Pedas, Code Enforcement Officer; Dick Anderson, Chief Building Official; Elaine Spencer, Manager of Engineering Operations & Planning; Jerry Blehm, Environmental Health; Jerry White, Zoning Administrator; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Mr. Barnett requested the Board to table the Johnston Minor Residential Development until September 7, 1993.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board table the Johnston Minor Residential Development until September 7, 1993, as requested by Mr. Barnett and the applicant..

Motion carried 2 - 0.

1. OWL CANYON LTD. PARTNERSHIP MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT #1 (#93-EX0289): SE 1/4 09-08-68; NORTHEAST

CORNER OF I-25 AND COUNTY ROAD 58, EAST OF BNRR

TRACKS; 141 ACRES; 2 LOTS; O-OPEN ZONING (8-16-93)

2. OWL CANYON LTD. PARTNERSHIP MRD #2 (#93-EX0290)

NE 1/4 09-08-68; SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 60

AND I-25, EAST OF BNRR TRACKS; 143 ACRES; 2 LOTS;

Mr. Kadera noted that since these two requests are similar, the Board will consider them simultaneously. The requests are to divide 141.1 acres and 142.4 acres, each into two lots of 131.1 and 10 acres and 132.4 and 10 acres. Mr. Kadera reviewed the major concerns and noted that the main issue of contention is the condition that the Final Plat

shall include a note that this property shall not be further divided without the approval of the Board of County Commissioners through the subdivision process. Staff Findings include: 1) The intent of the revised MRD regulations was to allow farm improvements to be divided from the rest of the farm or to allow a return on the farmer's investment by allowing the sale of one building lot. The intent is not to allow more than two parcels to be created through the MRD process; 2) The proposed Owl Canyon Limited Partnership MRD #1 & #2 are consistent with the revised MRD regulations, with the existing zoning of the site, and with existing development in the area; 3) Conditional approval of the Owl Canyon Limited Partnership MRD #1 & #2 will not result in any significant negative impacts on surrounding properties, utility services, transportation facilities, or the natural environment.

Dallas Horton, applicant, requested the Board to reconsider this condition of no more divisions, because of the improbability of very few persons being financially able to purchase the remaining large acreage in the future; whereas, it would be feasible to divide the large parcel into four 35-acre tracts. Jack Blake, Stewart & Associates, voiced his concern with the condition requiring the dedication of sufficient right-of-way to provide a half right-of-way at 50 feet along the frontage of County Road 58 and the condition regarding access. Ray Nauta and Harold Johnson also addressed the Board in support of this request. Mr. Horton noted he would be willing to pay reasonable impact fees required by the County if further division is allowed. Much discussion followed. Commissioner Duvall requested Staff to revise the conditions, including the requirement of imposing reasonable impact fees, for the Board to consider.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board take the Owl Canyon Ltd Partnership MRD #1 & #2 under advisement and will issue a written opinion within two weeks.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

3. MAJORS MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (#93-EX0288):

SE 1/4 OF 36-04-69; NORTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 2 (ON

LARIMER/BOULDER COUNTY LINE); 1/2 MILE EAST OF

COUNTY ROAD 15; 9.9 ACRES; 2 LOTS; FA-1 FARMING

ZONING (9-16-93).

This is a request to divide a 9.9 acre parcel with 2 existing dwellings into 2 lots of 4.95 acres each for single family dwelling units. Ms. Evans provided the project description

and noted that the property has two existing dwellings and is eligible for division using the Minor Land Division process. Ms. Evans noted that approval of this land division would not change the zoning of the property. Staff Findings are: 1) The proposed Majors Minor Residential Development is consistent with requirements for MRD's as contained in the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution concerning the number of lots created, lot size, access, and zoning; 2) The County Health and Engineering Departments, the Berthoud Fire District, the Town of Berthoud, utility companies, and other interested agencies reviewed this request and stated no objections as long as certain conditions are met; 3) The proposed Minor Residential Development is consistent with existing development and rural residential uses in the area; 4) There are two existing dwellings on this property. This proposal would remove one of these dwellings and create a vacant lot for construction of a new dwelling. The net result would be to have two dwellings on the property; 5) Approval of the request would eliminate a non-conforming situation of having two dwellings on one parcel; 6) Approval of the proposed Majors Minor Residential Development, with the following conditions, should not adversely affect adjacent property, the natural environment, or the provision of services or transportation.

Staff Recommendation is for approval of the Majors Minor Residential Development with the following conditions: 1) Before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for any new residence on these lots, the smaller of the two mobile homes on Lot 1 must be removed. A lot sale restriction shall be placed on this development until that mobile home is removed; 2) The fire hydrant required by Berthoud Fire District must be installed or a Subdivision Improvements Agreement insuring its installation must be signed and collateral received prior to recording the Final Plat; 3) Sufficient additional right-of-way must be dedicated on the Final Plat to provide a half right-of-way of 35 feet along the frontage of County Road 905; 4) Sight distance calculations must be submitted with the Final Plat to show adequate sight distance is available for access to these lots. If adequate sight distance is not available, a shared access for these lots must be approved by the County Engineering Department and shown and noted on the plat; 5) The Final Plat should note that the lot owners agree to pose no opposition to connecting to any future public wastewater system in the area; 6) All easements of record and easements requested by the utility companies must be shown on the Final Plat. All rights-of-way of record must be shown on the Final Plat; 7) School Fees of $8 for Lot 2 must be paid prior to recording the Final Plat; 8) The following notes must be shown on the Final Plat: A) Lot owners should be aware that phone service is limited in some areas of Larimer County. Phone service may not be available to these lots; B) Engineered footings and foundations are required for all residential construction on these lots; C) Radon detection tests are required in any new residential structure prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Test results must be submitted to the Planning Department; D) Park Fees will be collected at building permit issuance for the new residence on Lot 2; E) Uses on these lots shall be restricted to single family dwellings and permitted accessory uses; F) The Section 2.8 Fee of $1,038 for Lot 2 will be collected at building permit issuance; G) Agricultural drainage tiles are used in this area and may be located on this property. It may be difficult to determine the location of drainage tiles. Care should be taken during any construction on these lots to avoid damaging drainage tiles in the area; 9) Recording Fees and 17 folded blueprint copies of the Final Plat must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to recording the Final Plat; 10) All conditions of approval must be completed and the plat recorded prior to February 16, 1994, or this approval shall be null and void.

Ivan Majors, applicant, addressed the Board and requested retention of the second mobile home for use as storage and will agree that it will be a non-residential dwelling. Charlene Corey and Betty Weston voiced their concern that if this request is allowed, others in the area will also divide their property, resulting in an urban area. An unidentifed gentleman submitted a petition signed by other adjacent property owners in opposition to this request.. Mr. Majors assured the neighbors that he wants the property to remain agriculture and will not have a third residence on the property. Ms. Evans assured the neighbors that the other property in the area is not eligible for division thru the MRD process with access onto a private road. Discussion followed.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings, and the conditional Staff Recommendation, and approve the Majors Minor Residential Development, with the condition that one trailer unit must be removed; and noted that approval is granted because it will remove the "non-conforming situation of the two mobile homes on one parcel.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

4. GADSBY RANCH LAND DIVISION (#93-EX0226): SE 1/4 23 AND SW

1/4 24-08-70; 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY

ROAD 25E AND COUNTY ROAD 54E ON THE WEST SIDE OF COUNTY

ROAD 25E; 1 MILE NORTHWEST OF BELLVUE; 16.9 ACRES;

2 LOTS; O-OPEN ZONING (8-16-93)

This is a request to divide a 16.9 acre parcel, with existing dwelling, barns, and indoor arena, into two lots of 8.5 acres each. This item was originally heard as a Minor Residential Development request on July 6, 1993; at which time the Board took the matter under advisement for Staff to prepare findings and conditions of approval for a Minor Land Division on this property. Those findings are: 1) The proposed Gadsby Ranch Minor Residential Development is not consistent with the requirements for MRD's contained in the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution concerning permitted uses, and the proposed access exceeds the County Standard for a dead-end road. The request is not consistent with requirements for Minor Land Divisions concerning division of principal and accessory uses and meeting zoning lot size requirements; 2) The horse boarding facility is considered an accessory use to the single family dwelling on the property; 3) The applicants want to divide their horse boarding facility from the remainder of the property in hopes of obtaining better financing and insurance. They wish to continue operating the horse boarding facility, as it provides their income; 4) The proposed development takes access from County Road 25E at a location between two curves. The County Engineering Department has expressed concerns regarding the length of the proposed access and whether adequate sight distance is available for this access; 5) The County Health Department has stated that commercial livestock and or rodeo activity may create noise, odor and dust complaints from adjacent property owners, and that mitigation of these potential problems should be addressed; 6) Other various reviewing agencies have commented on this request and have stated no objections if certain conditions are met; 7) Approval of the proposed Gadsby Ranch Minor Residential Development, with the continuation of the business and with questionable access, wouild result in negative impacts on area residences and transportation and access; 8) Approval of the Minor Land Division, with appropriate conditions, would allow the applicants to split the property for mortgage financing and insurance purposes. Development impacts would be limited by conditions of approval that would address the existing business and future development.

Staff Recommendations are for denial of the proposed Gadsby Ranch Minor Residential Development and Approval of a Minor Land Division, in the same configuration as the proposed Minor Residential Development, with thirteen conditions.

Mr. Gary Gadsby, applicant, addressed the Board and stated he could not agree to the conditions and left the room before the Board decided on this matter.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board deny the Gadsby Ranch Minor Residential Development and deny the Gadsby Ranch Minor Land Division.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

 

5. CHERRY HEIGHTS MASTER PLAN, REZONING AND VACATION

(#93-MS0306): MAJORITY OF 13-08-69 BETWEEN COLORADO

HIGHWAY 1 AND WINDSOR RESERVOIR, NORTH OF COUNTY

ROAD 56; 235 ACRES; FA-1 FARMING EXISTING ZONING (8-16-93)

This is a request to vacate the Cherry Heights Master Plan, #S-65-83, and rezone to RE-Rural Estate. Ms. Michels provided the background information. Staff Findings include: 1) The land known as Cherry Heights was rezoned from O-Open to FA-1 Farming in 1979 with the condition that the Cherry Heights Planned Unit Development be developed; 2) The Cherry Heights Master Plan was approved in 1985. The Preliminary Phase Plan was approved in 1986 and approval was extended for one year both in 1987 and 1988; 3) Approval of the Preliminary Phase Plan of Cherry Heights expired in 1989 and vested rights expired in 1991; 4) The Larimer County Zoning Resolution and the Planned Unit Development Resolution allow the County to rezone property that has zoning based upon a development plan, when progress has not been made to implement the plan within two years; 5) The original property that was a part of the Cherry Heights Master Plan has been divided and is no longer in single ownership; 6) Rezoning the property to RE-Rural Estate is consistent with the zoning and uses in the area and will allow for reasonable development of the property in a manner which is compatible with existing development and the natural features in the area.

The Planning Commission recommendation is for approval of the vacation of Cherry Heights Master Plan and the rezoning of the property to RE-Rural Estate.

Ms. Lucia Liley, attorney representing Cherry Heights Associates, noted that the owners of the 216 acres in Cherry Heights object to the downzoning because it is a significant change from the existing zoning. Ms. Liley discussed several of the Staff Findings to help explain the nature of the owners objections; and requested this matter be tabled for a reasonable period to allow the owners to come up with a workable amendment to the Master Plan, which still allows the Cherry Heights developers to proceed with their development, with a density which is more consistent with the direction the County is taking at this time, and arrive at a workable solution which meets everyones needs. Mr. Grant Smith, owner of a 35-acre parcel in this development, requested the Board to not delay their decision today because he needs to proceed with development of this property. If the Board does approve this request, Ms. Liley requested that past history be noted so the applicants will not have to start from the beginning. Discussion followed.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and the Planning Commission recommendation and approve the Cherry Heights Master Plan, Rezoning and Vacation, with the record making note of the past history in this matter.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

6. ZONING AMENDMENT - SIDE YARD SETBACKS IN RE-1

RURAL ESTATE (#93-RA0262): (8-16-93)

This is a request to amend the minimum side yard setback of 100 feet to a minimum side yard of 50 feet. Mr. White reviewed the major concerns and issues. Staff Findings are: 1) The proposed Amendment will allow building setbacks consistent with the existing development in the area; 2) The 100-foot side yard setbacks required in the RE-1 Rural Estate Zone results in a severe restriction of non-conforming lots in the RE-1 Rural Estate Zone; 3) The strict application of the 100-foot side yard setback in the RE-1 Rural Estate Zoning District imposes a severe hardship and reduces to a high degree, building location flexibility; 4) The proposed Amendment to reduce the side yard setback to 50 feet in the RE-1 Rural Estate District is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Regulations.

Staff Recommendation is for approval of the Amendment of Section 12.3.B-50 feet. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the Amendment, but added "All lots greater than 500' average width shall have a 100' sideyard setback" .

Mr. White stated that this addition creates problems in the Estes Valley area and results in some lots being totally unbuildable. Mr. White noted that variance applications have already been received; therefore, he recommends the Board approve the Zoning Amendment as originally presented--with a 50 foot sideyard setback.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff Recommendation and approve the Zoning Amendment of Section 12.3.B for a 50 foot side yard setback.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

 

7. KNISLEY ALLEGED JUNKYARD VIOLATION: 4122 EAST COUNTY

ROAD 60; NE CORNER OF I-25 AND COUNTY ROAD 60 (8-16-93)

This alleged violation is for an accumulation and storage of wood pallets, scrap wood, and other assorted debris as to constitute a junkyard. Mr. Pedas submitted photos of the site and reviewed the major issues and concerns. Mr. Pedas noted that on August 18, 1992 a building permit was issued for a double wide mobile home to be located on the property. At this time, a motor home also appeared on the site and the accumulation of junk started. The property owner appears to be living in the motor home, there have been no inspections, and no Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Mr. Pedas stated that complaints have been received from five or six neighbors of this property. The property owner was not present for today's hearing. Staff Findings are: 1) The subject property is zoned O-Open District; 2) The O-Open District does not permit "junkyards"; 3) The O-Open District does not permit outside storage which is not an accessory to a permitted use; 4) The accumulation of wood on the subject property creates a severe fire hazard; and 5) The accumulation and storage of junk materials on the site will affect property values in the neighborhood.

Staff Recommendation is to find that a violation exists, require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action if the compliance deadline is not met.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff Recommendation and find that a violation exists at 4122 East County Road 60, require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action if the compliance deadline is not met.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

8. SNOW/NELSON ZONING/BUILDING VIOLATION: NE 1/4

35-5-69; AKA 620 WEST COUNTY ROAD 16 (8-16-93)

This alleged violation is for operating an expanded kennel facility in the FA -Farming Zoning District without Special Review Approval, and occupying a building (horse barn) as part of the kennel operation without several inspections, no Certificate of Occupancy, making changes in the building construction and interior without plan changes, etc. Mr. Pedas reviewed the major issues and concerns . Staff Findings include: 1) The operation of the kennel facility on the property is conditional upon a 1977 Special Review; 2) The revised plans for the new building on the property is for a "horse barn", not a kennel building; 3) Any changes or revisions to the kennel operation would be subject to special review approval by the Board; 4) Building inspections are required to insure that all health and human safety requirements are met.

Staff Recommendation is to find that a violation exists, require compliance and authorize legal action if compliance is not met or the building is occupied without final inspections, or used for anything other than a horse barn.

Mr. Brad March, attorney for the Nelsons, presented materials to the Board to clarify some of the concerns and noted this is a breeding kennel, not a boarding kennel, and does not exceed or even come close to the number of dogs allowed at the kennel. Mr. March noted that a permit to build a horse barn on the property was issued in June 1992. The Nelsons are doing the construction themselves and progress is slow. The Nelsons want to incorporate the dog operation into the new structure and eliminate the dog runs outside. The building will be double insulated; thereby reducing noise. Mr. March informed the Board that a Special Review application has been filed, but noted that most of the neighbors' concerns will be alleviated in time.

Mr. King Cavalier, Valerie Harmon, and Linda Carlson, adjacent property owners, addressed the Board with their concerns of increased traffic (if there is an expansion of the kennel) sewage, wetlands, welfare of small children living near the narrow dirt road leading to the kennel, preservation of the agriculture area, etc. Randy Burrows stated he is helping the Nelsons build the kennel and assured the Board there are no dogs in the new building. The Board asked Mr. Pedas what the Nelsons need to do to come into compliance; Mr. Pedas responded that the new building needs to be approved with a revised Special Review application to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that, in the matter of the Snow/Nelson Zoning/Building Violation, the Board find that a violation exists and require the Snow/Nelsons to make application for Special Review to determine the intended purpose of this new building.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

 

9. PRISCILLA INGOLIA AND MICHAEL BRAMBILA ALLEGED BUILDING

VIOLATION : 4520 WEST COUNTY ROAD 18, LOVELAND (8-16-93)

This alleged violation is for occupation of a house for which no Certificate of Occupancy was issued; a building permit was issued in September 1989 for a single family home. Mr. Anderson provided the background information, noting that no inspections for electrical, framing, and plumbing have been performed; therefore, violations of adopted codes may exist and health and life safety issues are a concern of the Building Department. The property owner was not present for today's hearing. Staff recommendation is to find that a violation exists, require compliance within 15 days, and authorize legal action if the compliance deadline is not met.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board find that in the matter of the Priscilla Ingolia/ Michael Brambila Alleged Building Violation, that a violation does exist, require compliance within 15 days, and authorize legal action if the compliance deadline is not met.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

10. JEWETT ALLEGED BUILDING VIOLATION: 1200 EAST DOUGLAS

ROAD (8-16-93)

This alleged violation is for construction of a storage building without a permit. Mr. Anderson informed the Board that on June 30, 1993, a stop work order was issued to Mr. Jewett for the construction of a shop. No permit has been processed and the structural integrity of the building needs to be verified. Staff recommendation is to find that a violation exists, require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action if the compliance deadline is not met.

Mr. Norman Jewett, property owner, submitted several photos of buildings which have been constructed near his property and he is sure that no building permits have been issued for these buildings. Mr. Jewett admitted he is in violation, but questioned why he is singled out in violation and not his neighbors. Mr. Anderson assured Mr. Jewett that these other buildings will be checked out to make sure they have permits, if the Building Department receives address locations for these buildings..

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board find that in the matter of the Jewett Alleged Building Violation a violation exists, require compliance within 30 days, and authorize legal action if the compliance deadline is not met.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

11. PREYSS ALLEGED BUILDING VIOLATION: SECTION 26,

TOWNSHIP 2, RANGE 72 (8-16-93)

This alleged violation is on a cabin constructed with no permit. Mr. Anderson provided the background information. Staff Findings are that the Assessor's Office has found a cabin at the above address with no processed permit. The property owner was not present for today's hearing. Staff recommendation is to find that a violation exists, require compliance within 45 days, and authorize legal action if the compliance deadline is not met.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that, in the matter of the Preyss Alleged Building Violation, the Board find that a violation exists, require compliance within 45 days, and authorize legal action if the compliance deadline is not met.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1993

PRESENTATION OF MANAGEMENT LETTER

(#306 @ 1270)

The Board of County Commissioners met 9:30 a.m. in regular session with the Auditors from Hunt, Spillman & Associates. Chairman Hotchkiss presided; Commissioner Duvall was present. As noted previously, Commissioner Disney is out of town this week. Also present were: Bob Grewell, Director of Finance; Dana Klausmeyer, Controller; and Bill Gordon, County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

For the benefit of Commissioner Duvall, Mr. Spillman explained what the Management Letter is and its purpose and intent. The Management Letter, prepared by Certified Public Accountants of Hunt, Spillman & Associates, was presented to the Board, highlighting matters which became evident during the audit of the financial statements of Larimer County, for the year ended December 31, 1993. Comments regarding these matters were circulated to appropriate departments and offices within the County and responses were solicited. This year, the Management Letter also included summaries of the replies from the various departments and offices, and in instances where the response indicated a reluctance to follow the auditor's recommendation, the auditor's reaction was included in an attempt for resolution.

The Board commented that the Management Letter was very clear and concise and revealed that the County has very few minor accounting problems.

Ms. Klausmeyer requested authorization from the Board for the Auditors and Finance to proceed working together on a proposal to review all the internal service funds and fee structures and make recommendations to the Board for approval at a later date. The Board agreed to this request.

The meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1993

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#308)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular session with Bill Gordon, County Administrator. Chairman Hotchkiss presided; Commissioner Duvall was present. Commissioner Disney is out of town this week. Also present were: Jerry White, Zoning Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE ON THE STATE LAND BOARD MINOR LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAT: Mr. White requested Board approval and the Chairman's signature on the State Land Board Minor Land Development Plat. Mr. White stated the purpose of this action is to split off ten acres near the Honda School in Estes Park, which has been used as a landfill site. Mr. White informed the Board that the purchaser has given his assurance that no building will be allowed on this ten acres.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve and the Chairman sign the State Land Board Minor Land Development Plat, as requested by Mr. White.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

2. There were no Commissioner Reports.

3. WORKSESSION:

-- Mr. Gordon stated that Averil Strand of the Health Department has invited the Board to send a representative to a meeting to be held in the City Council Chambers on August 18, 1993 at 6 p.m. There will be a discussion of Health Insurance Pooling.

-- Mr. Gordon presented a list of appointed and non-appointed officials and department heads to the Board. Discussion followed regarding the possible restructuring of department heads and appointed officials in an attempt to be consistent throughout the County.

4. DOCUMENT REVIEW: The following documents, of a routine nature, were considered by the Board:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Minutes, as amended, for the week of August 9, 1993; and the Agenda for the week of August 23, 1993, as submitted.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the following miscellaneous documents: Notice Concerning Restriction on Sale of Lots for Prouty Minor Residential Development; Mizer Minor Residential Plat; and State of Colorado, County of Larimer, Office of the Treasurer Six Month Report by the Larimer County Treasurer, Charles L. Woodward.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

LIQUOR LICENSES: Licenses were issued to The Jammer Lounge - 6% WITH EXTENDED HOURS - Loveland, CO. and River Forks Stage Stop - 6% - Drake, CO. County approval was granted to the Charco Broiler - 6% - Fort Collins, CO. and the Summit Restaurant - 6% - Loveland, CO.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the following documents:

A93-142 SYSTEM AND SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SCC INC. (Provision of Supplying

Certain Computer Hardware, Software and Services)

A93-143 AGREEMENT CONCERNING ELECTRICAL REPAIRS BETWEEN THE

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ERBACHER

ELECTRIC (Weatherization Program in Weld & Larimer Counties)

A93-144 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PROUTY MINOR

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND BRYAN G. AND PAMELA M. PROUTY

C93-42 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AND THE ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION (Provision of a Respite Voucher

Service to Care-givers of Seniors Over the Age of 60)

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The meeting recessed at 9:35 a.m.

LEGAL MATTERS

(#308 @ 1800)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 10:00 a.m. with Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Chairman Hotchkiss presided; Commissioner Duvall was present. Also present were: Mike Burch, Risk Manager; Bob Grewell, Director of Finance; and Bill Gordon, County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Mike Burch stated he has received quotes from Flood & Peterson, the insurance agency selected by the Board last year to represent the County in negotiations with insurance carriers. Several quotes for property insurance have been received; the best policy with the best price, depending upon the deductible the Board selects, ranges from $45,000 to $55,000. The $45,000 premium has a $50,000 deductible; the $50,000 premium has a $25,000 deductible; and the $55,000 premium has a $10,000 deductible. Each of these deductibles are per occurrence. Mr. Burch described the claims to the County for the past three years, and recommends the Board select the higher premium with the lowest deductible. Mr. Grewell concurs. Mr. Burch stated this larger premium is $15,623 more than budgeted in line item; therefore, this amount will be transferred from the property casualty fund.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board authorize Mr. Burch to purchase the property insurance policy for $55, 623 with the $10,000 deductible.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board go into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters.

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 11:10 a.m.; no action taken.

_____________________________________

COURTLYN W. HOTCHKISS, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

( S E A L )

ATTEST:

 

__________________________________

Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk