PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1995
(#184 & #209)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular
session with Russ Legg, Chief Planner. Chair Disney presided;
Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also present were:
Al Kadera, Subdivision Administrator; Planner Carol Evans; Elaine
Spencer, Rex Burns and Harry Lynam, Engineering; Jerry Blehm,
Environmental Health; Vaughn Furniss, Parks Department; and Jeannine
Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
Mr. Legg informed the Board that the Seven Springs Ranch Planned
Unit Development (#94-MS0568) has been withdrawn by the applicant
and therefore removed from today's agenda.
Chair Disney stated that the following are consent items and will
not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Commissioners
or members of the audience.
1. CIMARRON LAKE AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 2, 3, 5 & 6 (#94-SA0633):
23-08-69; NORTH OF DOUGLAS ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 54) ON THE
EAST SIDE OF SHIELDS STREET (COUNTY ROAD 17); 9.45 ACRES;
3 LOTS; FA-FARMING ZONING (02-13-95).
This is a request to reconfigure existing lots. Staff Findings
include: 1) Cimarron Lake Subdivision was approved in 1994; 2)
The Jackson Ditch was used as a dividing line between some of
the lots. This Amended Plat will reconfigure four lots into three
slightly larger lots that make better use of the site; 3) The
County Health and Engineering Departments, and all utilities serving
this area, have reviewed the proposed Amended Plat and stated
no objections. The Staff Recommendation is for approval of the
Amended Plat of Lots 2, 3, 5 & 6, Cimarron Lake Subdivision.
2. RED FEATHER RANCH AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 6, 9 & 12
(#94-SA0634): 18-10-72; NORTHEAST OF RED FEATHER LAKES;
3 ACRES; O-OPEN ZONING (02-13-95).
This is a request to reconfigure three existing lots resulting
in two building sites. Staff Findings are: 1) Red Feather Ranch
Subdivision was approved in 1973; 2) The existing lots are slightly
smaller than the minimum lot size required in the O-Open Zoning
District. The proposed Amended Plat will bring the lots into
compliance with the zoning by adding part of Lot 9 to Lots 6 and
12; 3) The County Health and Engineering Department, and all utilities
serving this area, have reviewed the proposed Amended Plat and
stated no objections. Poudre Valley REA requests ten-foot utility
easements along both sides of any existing electric lines on this
The Staff Recommendation is for approval of the Amended Plat of
Lots 6, 9 and 12, Red Feather Ranch Subdivision, with the condition
that any existing electric lines on the site be identified on
the Plat and be provided easements as requested by REA.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings
and Staff Recommendation and approve the Cimarron Lake Amended
Plat of Lots 2, 3, 5 & 6 (#94-SA0633) and the Red Feather
Ranch Amended Plat of Lots 6, 9 & 12 (#94-SA0634).
Motion carried 3 - 0.
3. TURNER MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPEAL (#94-EX0632):
03-09-68; 4 MILES NORTHEAST OF WELLINGTON; 12 ACRES;
2 LOTS; O-OPEN ZONING (02-13-95).
This is a request for authorization to process a Minor Residential
Development on a parcel that did not exist on May 5, 1972. Mr.
Kadera submitted a map of the area and reviewed the major concerns
and issues. Staff Findings include: 1) The property in question
is not eligible for an MRD because it cannot meet minimum lot
size. If the parcel is made larger by adding some of the adjacent
property, the lot will not be in the same configuration that it
was in 1972 when Senate Bill 35 was adopted; 2) The MRD process
was intended to allow the creation of a limited number of building
sites where the impacts are minimal and the property can meet
all the minimum requirements. The subdivision process is in place
to address the situations where there are problems with meeting
minimum standards; 3) Staff consistently recommends denial of
all appeals because the decision is a policy matter that should
be determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The Staff
Recommendation is for denial of the Turner Minor Residential Development
Ed Turner, applicant, addressed the Board and noted that they purchased this property on April 21, 1972, prior to the passage of Senate Bill 35, and they feel as private citizens and landowners they are being denied their constitutional rights to develop their land in such a manner to best benefit their family; however, they have agreed to purchase an additional eight acres, thereby incurring further indebtedness, to meet the requirements. During the discussion among the Board, it was agreed that this location is not going to cause any significant impact and can be considered as an exception, without setting a precedent.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the Turner Minor
Residential Development Appeal (#94-EX0632).
Motion carried 3 - 0.
4. WYNDHAM HILL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY
PLAT AND REZONING (#94-MS0428): NW 19-06-68; SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 32 AND COUNTY ROAD 13 (LEMAY),
SOUTH OF GREENSTONE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND
WEST OF PROPOSED PATTERSON PUD; 42.9 ACRES; 18 LOTS;
FA-1 FARMING ZONING (02-13-95)
This is a request for approval of a Preliminary Plat to divide
42.9 acres into 18 residential lots of .6 acres to 4.7 acres,
with one commercial lot of 1.5 acres and 18 acres of open space,
and for rezoning to create a 1.5 acre commercial area. Mr. Legg
reviewed the major concerns and issues, and submitted an updated
letter from the Public Works Department regarding traffic in the
area. Staff Findings include: 1) The proposed Wyndham Hill
Planned Unit Development is not consistent with the zoning of
the site due to the business use of the property; 2) The proposed
residential density appears consistent with the current rural
non-farm guidelines adopted as part of the Intergovernmental Agreement;
3) Approval of the Wyndham Hill Planned Unit Development, with
the proposed business use and the unresolved issues associated
with the proposed community horse area, may result in significant
negative impacts on the transportation system and natural environment
of surrounding properties; 4) The proposed business area is not
in conformance with the rural non-farm guidelines and the Intergovernmental
Agreements with the City of Fort Collins and Loveland. That agreement
provides that rural non-farm areas shall not be rezoned to commercial.
The Staff/Planning Commission Recommendations are for denial of the proposed commercial use and rezoning from FA-1 to C-Commercial; denial of the Master Plan of the Wyndham Hill Planned Unit Development; and denial of the proposed Preliminary Plat., until such time as more information is obtained on the horse facility and the non-residential use is removed from the plan.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Blehm stated that
as part of the wildlife study, the prairie dog issue needs to
be addressed. Mr. Burns described the plan for a proposed trail
along Stanton Creek and the intent for the trail to cross under
County Road 32 and possibly extend under County Road 13. Mr.
Burns also noted that Stanton Creek is slightly unstable and,
over time, the banks will migrate and erode into the creek; therefore,
he suggested that the applicant prepare a plan for the stabilization
of the banks. Mr. Furniss noted that Stanton Creek is proposed
as a major connection between Fort Collins and Loveland; the City
of Fort Collins has secured easements through Greenstone Subdivision
and put in a bike-pedestrian culvert on the north side of this
property. Mr. Furniss also noted that the City of Fort Collins
has agreed to pay for the study of oversizing the culvert to accommodate
a bike/pedestrian path and pay for the oversizing.
Jan Peterson of Peterson Design, representing the applicants,
presented a three-dimensional map and noted that the original
design concept for this proposal was designed in such a way to
be sensitive to the specific environmental conditions of this
site He noted that they chose to do a PUD rather than a subdivision
because it would allow them to be more innovative in terms of
proposing mixed uses and cluster development with large open space
areas, which they have done. He stated that they are very concerned
about the quality of the development and about the appearance
and they absolutely do not want to have the traditional nuisance
commercial type business on the property, they strictly want to
have a small residential style office park building and the applicants
are willing to state that use in the covenants so it could never
be anything else. Mr. Peterson noted that the open space they
have provided has exceeded requirements. Mr. Peterson addressed
the traffic concern as it relates to the business use and noted
that the applicants are willing to remove the access in and out
of CR 32, if that is the desire of the Board. There was discussion
of the traffic counts on CR 13 and Mr. Peterson noted that this
development will generate a very small amount of traffic on the
road compared to the total traffic and it doesn't seem fair to
single this applicant out as the sole funding source for improving
these roads; they are more than willing to pay their fair share.
He submitted a proposal for the Wyndham Hill Horse Facility,
noting that it will be high quality facility with high standards;
he noted, however, that it is not an absolute for sure that it
will be built - it depends on the people who buy these properties.
The proposal stated that the number of horses will be limited
on the property and there would be managed scheduled use of the
open space so it would not be overgrazed; if the horse facility
is not built, that land will remain in open space.
At this time the hearing was opened for public comments. Sandra
Tinsman, residing directly west of this property, spoke in support
of the open space concept but, as the development is proposed
at this time, she supports the recommendation for denial. She
thinks the density is too high and the lot sizes are incompatible
with the neighboring properties, which range from 1 to 4 acres
or more. She further stated that the commercial use is inappropriate
and not in conformance with the IGA, the horse barn could present
significant adverse impacts, and she wants the mosquitoes managed
properly. Wanda Patterson, adjoining landowner, supports the
proposal and noted that it fits in with the corridor plan and
stated that larger lots are more difficult to maintain. Bob Long,
resides west of this site, stated that a lot of creative ideas
have gone into this proposal; however, he is concerned that the
surrounding areas have larger lot sizes and noted that this proposed
density would be appropriate if it was on 80 acres and he is also
concerned about the commercial use. Tom Cipriana, resides in
Highland Park Subdivision, expressed concern about the density
and about the commercial use. Frank McCray spoke on behalf of
the project, noting that the applicants have developed this in
the spirit of the Corridor Task Force with the clustering and
open space and have proposed a quality development. Marty Noonan,
applicant and member of the Corridor Task Force, responded to
some of the concerns raised, noting that the property immediately
adjacent to the north of them is approximately 1/3 acre per lot
and has city density, there are a lot of 1/2 acre lots surrounding
this development, and what they have proposed creates a soft border
or feathering. She addressed mosquito control, density, traffic,
congestion, and expressed willingness to participate in road dust
control, but does not feel they should be totally responsible
for all road improvements. Ms. Noonan stated that the commercial
use will actually help with congestion as it will be a small office
building and will eliminate the need for at least two persons
to leave the area each day for work. With regard to the bike
trail, they are willing to grant an easement for extension of
the bike trail. Tom Noonan addressed the concern regarding an
existing building on their property, which belongs to someone
else, stating that it will be removed in a few days; it was noted
that this is the zoning violation that is referred to in the staff
report. Bud Stump stated that this applicant has made every
effort to satisfy the county and the staff and asked why this
developer has to pave CR 13 and yet if this proposal is denied,
will it be paved by the county; Mr. Burns responded negatively.
Mr. Stumpf questioned this stating that it doesn't make sense
to require this developer to carry the total burden of road improvements.
Ms. Spencer responded for general information that if there
are over 200 trips per day on a road, the county will apply magnesium
chloride and that works up to 450 trips per day; at this point,
CR 13 is at 800 trips per day and the mag chloride is not working.
She expects that the Transportation Plan which is being developed
will require that sometime within the next 20 years, this road
should be paved; however, it is their recommendation that any
time that the existing trips on the road exceeds what the county
can adequately maintain, that the road either be reconstructed
and paved or declare that the development is premature. Harry
Sauer, member Corridor Task Force, informed the Board that one
thing everyone on the Task Force could agree on was that to have
a subdivision with 43% open space is more desirable than to have
4 or 5 acre parcels.
In summary, Jan Peterson noted that this is a Master Plan and
the applicants are willing to work with staff on any part of it,
but requested the Board not to deny it, but to give them a chance
to work on it to address the concerns.
At this time, the public portion of the hearing was closed and opened for discussion among the Board. Commissioner Clarke stated that he visited the property and thinks that the lot sizes are compatible with others in the neighborhood and he feels that everyone that lives around CR 13 should help pay for the road improvements and not just require one developer to pay it all. He is in favor of the small office park building because he likes the idea of not having to drive to work, but he recommends that a condition be written that that is all it could ever be. Commissioner Duvall expressed concern with the Board changing the rules as they go, even though she too thinks it is a good idea to be able to walk to work and the proposal does fit in with the corridor recommendations. She asked if the horse facility wasn't built, would people have horses on their individual lots; Mr. Peterson responded "No". She stated she is not ready to turn it down and not ready to approve it and she would like to see this proposal go back to the Planning Commission. Chair Disney concurred with Commissioner's Duvall's comments; in addition, he is concerned about the run off from the pond and would like to give staff time to review the horse plan and answer some of the road questions.
After further discussion, the Board determined it would be appropriate
to refer this proposal back to the Planning Commission to address
the following issues and concerns: 1) Require a humane and ecologically
sound management plan for the prairie dogs; 2) Achieve a better
understanding of the Stanton Creek as a wildlife habitat area
and how it will be protected, and resolve the trail question;
3) Resolve the details of improving CR 13, such as what improvements
should be made and how the cost of such improvements will be allocated
between the developer and others who would benefit from the improvements;
4) Resolve the question on the unstable creek banks; 5) Resolve
the question of the inlet into the pond; 6) Determine whether
a commercial use of the property can be permitted without breaching
the terms of the IGA. Input from Fort Collins and Loveland should
be obtained about this issue. If a commercial use can be permitted
under the IGA, determine whether such use of the property is feasible
and/or appropriate. If a commercial use is feasible and/or appropriate,
determine what specifically the covenants will state to insure
that the design of the commercial buildings is residential in
character and to insure that the commercial use will remain as
approved; 7) Determine the most appropriate access for such business
development; 8) Determine whether internal roads in this development
should tie in or connect with adjacent subdivisions or whether
such roads may serve this development along with no connections
to adjacent properties. Chair Disney recommended that a note
be placed on the plat stating that the county is not responsible
for mosquito control and also a note notifying potential property
owners on the cul-de-sac that a right-of-way is dedicated on the
stub streets and someday a street may be constructed at that location
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board refer the Wyndham Hill
Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning back to
the Planning Commission to resolve the concerns outlined above
and, based on its resolution of those concerns, recommend whether
or not the project should be approved.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
5. LINDEN RIDGE SUBDIVISION SECOND FILING (#94-SU0591):
NE 11-07-68; TWO MILES EAST OF I-25 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
COUNTY ROAD 48 (THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD
48 AND COUNTY ROAD 3 INTERSECTION) PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED
AS #S-19-88; 29.94 ACRES; 9 LOTS; FA-1 FARMING ZONING
This is a request to divide Lot 1 of the Linden Ridge Minor Residential
Development into 9 lots for single family residential use; seven
lots are approximately 2.5 acres and two lots are proposed at
about 5.5 acres. Ms. Evans provided a brief summary of the proposal
and stated that at the time the Lindenridge 1st Filing was approved,
the applicant proposed a concept plan outlining their intentions
for the future--that concept was Lindenridge 2nd. She submitted
an aerial photo and located the site on the map for the Board.
Staff Findings include: 1) The proposed Linden Ridge Subdivision
2nd Filing is consistent with the FA-1 Farming Zoning of the site
and appears to be consistent with existing development in the
general area; 2) There are existing farming operations in the
vicinity of this project, but there are no high intensity uses
such as feed lots or dairies in the immediate area; 3) Percolation
testing on the proposed lots show that the project meets the technical
requirements for on-site sewage disposal; 4) Approval of the proposed
Linden Ridge Subdivision 2nd Filing, with the following conditions,
should not result in any significant negative impacts on surrounding
properties, utility services, transportation facilities, or the
Commissioner Duvall questioned the legality of this applicant
having this property divided and approved previously through a
MRD; Ms. Evans responded that it is allowable to go through the
subdivision process after a MRD is approved to request a replat
of a lot. Commissioner Disney asked about condition #3 under
the Planning Commission recommendations stating that some lots
may require engineered septic systems, which are more expensive
to install and more difficult and expensive to maintain. Ms.
Evans stated that which lots this requirement will apply to will
be determined at the time the perc test is done and the purpose
of this condition is to give notice that when a buyer purchases
one of these lots there is a possibility that they might have
to install this type of septic system. Commissioner Disney asked
how the $813 road fee was calculated, if this location is within
the standard response time for fire protection, and suggested
that another condition be added that the county is not responsible
for subdivision road maintenance.
Lou Kinzli, applicant, addressed the concerns of fire protection,
noting that response time is estimated to be five minutes and
that fire hydrants are available in the First Filing. With regard
to the concern about the septic systems, it will be mandatory
for the homeowner to have their systems pumped every four years
and in the 2nd Filing, they are planning for easements so if public
sewer comes into the area they will be ready for it. Mr. Kinzli
stated that funds will have to be collected through annual dues
to maintain the roads in the 2nd Filing; this was not a requirement
for lots in the 1st Filing.
The Staff/Planning Commission Recommendation is for approval of the Preliminary Plat for Linden Ridge Subdivision 2nd Filing, with the following conditions: 1) The Final Plat shall be completed in strict conformance with the conditionally approved Preliminary Plat, including all notes; 2) All concerns and comments from the County Engineering Department shall be addressed in the Final Plat application; 3) The applicant shall submit a site plan designating septic envelopes in areas where perc tests have been conducted. The Final Plat shall note that a site plan is on file in the Larimer County Planning Department designating specific septic envelopes for each lot in the area where perc tests had been conducted. The plat shall note that some lots may require engineered septic systems and that these systems are more expensive to install and more difficult and expensive to maintain than standard septic systems; 4) The Homeowner's Association covenants must include a provision for payment of annual dues by lot owners for routine septic system pumping. Such system pumping will be administered by the Homeowner's Association with cleanout of the tanks to take place at least every 4 years. The specifics of this maintenance proposal must be approved by the Larimer County Health Department. Covenants shall be recorded with the Final Plat; 5) All improvements associated with this project (roads, street signs, hydrants, water lines and other utilities) shall be included in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement which shall be secured by appropriate collateral in a type and amount approved by the County Commissioners; 6) Construction plans for water lines and access roads shall be subject to the approval of the County Engineering Department, ELCO Water District, and the Poudre Fire Authority. Plans must be approved and signed by these agencies prior to recording the Final Plat; 7) All conditions set forth by ELCO Water District shall be complied with as part of the Final Plat process; 8) All easements requested by utility companies shall be shown on the Final Plat; 9) The Final Plat must dedicate additional right-of-way along the frontage road with County Road 3 and County Road 48 to provide a half right-of-way of 35' along each of these roads; 10) In addition to notes stated elsewhere in these conditions, the Final Plat shall contain the following notes: a) Prospective lot owners should be aware of the existing agricultural activities in this area. Agricultural uses often result in noise, odors and dust that might not be compatible with residential uses. Larimer County will not take any action to stop or hinder legal agricultural uses of property in this area; b) Larimer County Park fees will be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings on these lots; c) The Section 2.8 Road Fee of $813 shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings on these lots; d) This general area is used for goose hunting from November to January of each year. Lot owners should be willing to coexist with a variety of wildlife species which use this area; e) Engineered footings and foundations shall be required for all construction on these lots; f) A radon test shall be conducted in all new residential structures after the structures are enclosed, but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Test results shall be submitted to the Larimer County Planning Department; g) Septic envelopes are shown on each lot; no structures or driveways are permitted in these area; 11) School fees of $8 per lot shall be paid prior to recording the Final Plat; 12) The location of the drain tile on this property shall be mapped, along with appropriate easements, on the Final Plat. Covenants should address maintenance of the drain tile; 13) Proposed street names for the cul-de-sac shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Names must be approved and shown on the Final Plat; 14) Underground utilities are required for this development; 15) A note shall be included on the Final Plat stating: Lot owners agree to participate in any future Special Improvements District should one be formed to bring public sewer to the area. The Final Plat shall provide easements for future public sewer; 16) Maintenance of these subdivision roads will not be the county's responsibility.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt the Staff Findings and Staff/Planning Commission Recommendation
and approve the Linden Ridge Subdivision Second Filing (#94-SU0591),
with the conditions as amended.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 noon.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1995
HUMAN RESOURCES STANDING MEETING
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular
session with Ralph Jacobs, Director of Human Resources. Chair
Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present.
Also present were: Suzanne Comcowich, Employee Relations and
Classification Specialist; Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager;
and Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
1. Position Reclassification: Mr. Jacobs described the county's
classification system, noting that employees are placed in pay
grades in a manner that is consistent with the difficulty and
responsibility of their positions. Mr. Jacobs reviewed reclassifications
and stated that most positions are reclassified because the
position changes; in most cases, the department head has the discretion
to raise a position from a 1 to 2 by using reasonable criteria
and other changes require review by the Personnel Department.
Mr. Jacobs stated that in the vast majority of requests, the
requests are justified and the position is reclassified; he further
noted that performance doesn't enter into reclassification.
Much discussion followed between the Board and Mr. Jacobs concerning
how much time it takes for a reclassification; Ms. Comcowich stated
that the average reclassification takes between three to six weeks.
Commissioner Duvall noted that comments have been made to the
Board concerning the time it takes for requests to be reviewed;
she asked Mr. Jacobs, when reclassification requests are received,
if he could provide a reasonable date when an answer may be expected.
It was noted that with technology changing so quickly, job evolution
occurs, but it does not necessarily warrant reclassification.
The Board agreed that there is a need for reclassifications,
but also a need to improve the processing. In summary, the Board
requested Mr. Jacobs to: 1) Determine a time perimeter for reclassification
requests; 2) Provide specific reasons for the reclassification
based on market data; and 3) Consider seriously the department
head requests. Various pay incentives were discussed, such as
"Pay for Performance" and a "One-Time Bonus".
2. Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing Policy: Mr. Jacobs requested Board approval for a revision to the Larimer County Personnel Policy Manual which will assist the County in complying with the U.S. Department of Transportation Drug and Alcohol testing regulations. He noted there are three departments in the county with employees who are going to have to be tested within the next few weeks - Road & Bridge, Sheriff, and Fleet Management. In reviewing the Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing Policy, Commissioner Clarke recommended several changes; i.e., #3 under the Statement of Policy should be changed from four hours to eight hours, to read: "No employee shall perform safety-sensitive functions within eight hours after consuming alcohol. Under #1 under Section B on page 3 he recommended a change from 0.04 to 0.02 to read "An employee who is involved in an accident and is found to have a confirmed positive drug test or a confirmed alcohol test result of 0.02 or higher, as a result of a post accident drug or alcohol test, will be dismissed from employment".
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board approve a revision to
the Larimer County Personnel Policy Manual and adopt the Controlled
Substance and Alcohol Testing Policy, with the recommended revisions
as outlined above, to enable the County to comply with the U.
S. Department of Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing Regulations.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
3. Employee Human Resources Advisory Committee: As directed
by the Board last Fall, Mr. Jacobs noted he has sent out letters
to the elected officials and department and division directors
requesting one employee from each department be selected to serve
on the Employee Human Resources Advisory Committee. Mr. Jacobs
stated that the deadline is March 15, 1995 and he is starting
to receive names of persons to serve on this Committee.
4. Pilots-Life Insurance: Mr. Jacobs noted that when the county
decided to change life insurance companies in 1994, the new policy
does not cover the employees in the Sheriff's Department which
are pilots. After discussion of several alternatives, the Sheriff
has agreed to pay the premium of $700 out of his budget for a
separate policy through Life Insurance Company of North America
(LINA) to cover these pilots. Therefore, Mr. Jacobs requested
Board approval, and the Chair's signature, on a travel accident
policy for the Sheriff's pilots for 1995. Mr. Jacobs noted that
this policy has been approved as to form by Assistant County Attorney
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the LINA Business
Travel Accident Policy for the Sheriff's Pilots for 1995, and
authorize the Chair to sign same
Motion carried 3 - 0.
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1995
(#211, #212 & #213)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular session at Wellington Junior High School. Chair Disney presided; Commissioners Clarke and Duvall were present. Also present were: Dick Anderson, Facilities Manager; Ralph Jacobs, Human Resources Director; Donna Hart, Assistant to the County Manager; Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; and Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
1. Introduction: Chair Disney introduced the Board and County
Staff to a 6th grade class and two 9th grade Civic classes from
Wellington Junior High School; he indicated on a large map of
the County which district each Commissioner represents. Each
Commissioner gave a brief history of their background before becoming
a County Commissioner. Chair Disney briefly explained county
government and discussed the purpose of "County Seat for
2. Recommendation on Siting for Courthouse/Administrative Offices:
Mr. Anderson made a presentation on the proposed site for the
new Criminal Justice Center and Administrative Offices Facility.
He noted that a study to find the best possible site has transpired
over the past 16-18 months; a number of sites have been analyzed
and the site north of the existing Courthouse has been recommended
as the best available site. Mr. Anderson stated that the Building
Team has asked him to come to the Board for approval of their
recommendation to build the new Criminal Justice Center on Block
31, with the current building to house the expanded Administrative
Offices to meet their needs for the next twenty years. Mr. Anderson
stated that the new Criminal Justice Center will be a three-story
building with 90,000 square feet. Questions and discussion followed
regarding money currently being expended for rental space for
county offices, which may not be available in the future, previous
discussions held with the City of Fort Collins regarding Block
31, public and private partnerships, the need for further discussions
with the City of Fort Collins, consequences if the Criminal Justice
Center was located at the Detention Center site, etc.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board continue to pursue the
expansion of county facilities on Block 31 with the expansion
being done in conjunction with our partners, the City of Fort
Collins, and we continue to cooperate with them to build a Criminal
Justice Center and parking structure on Block 31, that we pursue
the idea of remodeling the existing County Courthouse for County
administrative offices to include the functions which exist there
now, and to give us space for further expansion in the future,
and to continue to work with the private sector to try and come
up with ways to better utilize this very valuable ground; and
that in the Criminal Justice Center we include in those plans
specifically not only space for the courts, but also the District
Attorney, Probation Department, and Community Corrections, with
the Sheriff's Department relocated to the Detention Center site,
with the understanding that opportunities for cooperative financial
partnerships be discussed with the City of Fort Collins and the
Motion carried 3 - 0.
At this time, several students from the 9th grade Civics Class
asked several questions of the Board regarding this action.
3. Request to Hire Financial Consultant for Facilities: Mr. Anderson reminded that Board that when the consulting firm of Interplan was hired, part of their total package was the financial consultant of Coley-Forrest. Mr. Anderson stated that through an investigation of this firm to see if the county should hire them, they realize that they have much experience working in public and private sectors. Mr. Anderson noted that $20,800 of the total of $230,000 allotted for consulting services has been budgeted for financial consulting; discussion followed and CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to direct Mr. Anderson to move toward hiring Coley-Forrest as the financial consultant for the Criminal Justice Center and courthouse facilities.
4. Request for Leave Sharing for Critically Ill Employee: Mr.
Jacobs requested approval from the Board to allow a waiver of
policy to permit the transfer of sick leave to Dan Fair, a Larimer
County employee in the Assessor's Office who has a life threatening
illness, from Roshan Fair and from willing employees in the Assessor's
Office; this request to be effective January 27, 1995 through
the end of February, 1995, on an as-needed basis.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve a waiver of policy
to allow a transfer of sick leave to Dan Fair from Roshan Fair
and employees in the Assessor's Office who desire to donate some
of their leave, effective January 27, 1995 through the end of
February of 1995.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
5. Response to Environmental Advisory Board Recommendations:
Mr. Lancaster submitted a listing of the responses to the recommendations
from the Environmental Advisory Board for the Board's review;
Mr. Lancaster noted he sent a copy of same to John Barnett, Director
of Planning. CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to approve the list
of responses and voiced their pleasure that an action due date
was given beside each recommendation.
6. Request for Approval of High Priority Technology Improvements:
Mr. Lancaster submitted a listing of all the pending technology
requests the Board has received. Mr. Lancaster stated that based
on discussions with the Information Technology Advisory Committee
(ITAC), Jim. Stokes, Bob Keister and Mr. Lancaster reviewed this
listing and ranked the requests A, B and C based on priorities.
Mr. Lancaster noted that an "A" ranking was given
to those requests which appear to be critical in order for departments
to continue to operate. Mr. Lancaster stated that $600,000
has been budgeted for technology upgrades in 1995, and he recommends
that the Board approve the "A" items and then at a future
time, the Board continue discussing the "B" and "C"
items. Mr. Lancaster stated that during the budget process,
they asked the departments what they could fund themselves, in
an effort to get people to pay for requests out of their own funds,
and he noted that many of these requests have been resolved.
Mr. Lancaster further noted that all the "A" items
are compatible with networking.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board authorize the expenditure
of $182,700 out of the $600,000 previously authorized for technology
for the "A" priorities in the Technology Decision Packages
for 1995, as recommended by Mr. Lancaster, Mr. Stokes and Mr.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
-- Letter from Glacier View Fire Protection Board: In response
to a letter from the Glacier View Fire Protection Board regarding
an error in the mill levy assessment for 1995 and requesting
the error be corrected before they start collecting tax revenue,
Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that he drafted a letter stating
there is nothing that can be done at this time because tax assessment
bills have already been mailed, but an adjustment can be made
-- Items for Next Week's Standing Meetings: For the Board's
information, Mr. Lancaster submitted the agenda items for the
Social Services, Public Works and Planning Standing Meetings.
Commissioner Duvall requested that during the Planning Worksession,
that a listing of projects scheduled for 1994 be submitted for
the Board's review to determine if those goals were met, before
proceeding on to the 1995 goals.
-- Cabinet Worksession: The subjects for the next Cabinet Worksession
will be to review the feedback from the division and department
heads regarding the appraisal system and possibly some of the
discussion items carried over from Policy Worksession.
-- Policy Worksession: Of the five items listed for Policy Worksession,
the Board selected Fund Balance Philosophy, Service Priorities
Philosophy Statements and Control vs. Service as the three main
subjects for discussion.
8. Commissioners' Reports:
-- Commissioner Clarke reported on a briefing he will be attending
in Parker, Colorado on February 20, 1995 regarding Super Slab
which relates to the Board's railroad relocation project. Commissioner
Clarke informed the Board that Super Slab will be a combination
rail and automobile corridor which would take off from I-25 near
Fort Collins and continue east and then go straight south and
bypass all the major population areas in northern Colorado on
into the edge of DIA and continue south to Colorado Springs and
-- Commissioner Duvall recommended that progress reports on the
1995 Commissioners' Work Plan be kept in the forefront to keep
the public aware of its progress and possibly do several press
releases to give more visibility to what the Board is trying to
accomplish in 1995.
-- Chair Disney reported that he and Commissioner Clarke met
with the Thompson R2J School District Officials and they are very
interested in cooperating with the county in planning as it relates
to land use and as the land use dictates the need for new facilities;
he noted they are exploring of idea of hiring a staff person to
work with the various planning departments they have to interact
with the City of Fort Collins, City of Loveland, Town of Berthoud,
and the County so that we have a better dialogue going on between
the school district and other jurisdictions.
9. 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 for
the week of February 6, 1995 and the Agenda for the week of February
20, 1995, as submitted.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve Petitions for
Abatement, as recommended by the County Assessor, for: Clark;
O'Keefe; Kenyon; Chimney Rock; Eklund; Gaucin/LLamas; and Stiles.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the State of
Colorado, County of Larimer, Office of the Treasurer Six-Month
Report Statement of the Semi-Annual Condition of Larimer County.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
LIQUOR LICENSES: County Approval was granted to South Taft Liquor - 6% - Fort Collins, CO. and Gasamat No. 110 - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO. Licenses were issued to: Drink N Dawg - 6% WITH EXTENDED HOURS - LaPorte, CO.; City Park Liquors - 6% - Fort Collins, CO.; Branding Iron Liquor, Inc. - 6% - LaPorte, CO.; Sundance Steak House & Country Club - 6% WITH EXTENDED HOURS - Fort Collins, CO.; Best Western Coach House Motor Inn - 6% WITH EXTENDED HOURS - Loveland, CO.; Convenience Plus No. 7 - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO.; and Horsetooth Marina Resort, Inc. - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board approve the following
A95-05 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND RUSSELL C. BARGER (Use of Property
as a Firearms Range by the Sheriff's Department)
C95-11 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
(Application for Reimbursement of Expenses for Cleanup of Leaking
Storage Tanks at the Larimer County Shop, 1303
N. Shields Street)
R95-18s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MASTER PLAN
AND PRELIMINARY PHASE PLAN OF MCKEE CHARITABLE
TRUST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
R95-19s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION DENYING THE REPLAT OF LOT 20,
BUCKSKIN HEIGHTS 1ST FILING
Motion carried 3 - 0.
At the end of the meeting, Wellington resident Len Roark thanked
the Board for today's meeting with the citizens and students and
noted that he is very impressed with the Board and how they are
reaching out to the public.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
JIM DISNEY, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
( S E A L )
Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk
February 15, 1995