The Larimer County Virtual Courthouse website may be unavailable during maintenance on Wednesday, June 3 from 6 - 8 p.m. MST.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, JULY 29, 1996
DISCUSSION OF SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SALARIES
The Board of County Commissioner met at 10:30 a.m. in regular session with Sheriff Richard Shockley. Chair Clarke presided; Commissioners Disney and Duvall were present. Also present were: Barbara Case King, Legal Advisor; Capt. Gary Darling, Cpl. Rick Perkins, and Sgt. Al Ohms of the Sheriff's Department; Bob Keister, Budget Manager; Ralph Jacobs, Human Resources Director; Patsi Maroney, Compensation & Benefits Specialist; and Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the low salaries being paid to employees in the Sheriff's Department and the resulting exodus of highly trained and qualified officers leaving the department for other police enforcement agencies offering higher wages.
Chair Clarke noted that when he reviewed a report previously sent by Ms. Case King, he noted the disparity in pay between Larimer County and the other law enforcement entities in northern Colorado; he stated there is a 23% disparity from the 50th percentile for sergeants up to a 7% disparity for captains and he asked what it would cost to move the sergeants, corporals, and patrol officers up to the same level as captains. Commissioner Disney stated he is interested in looking at numbers to determine what is fair versus what can we afford, and how does it fit in context with the whole county employee picture. Sheriff Shockley responded that when comparing these salaries to the whole county, they need to look at the picture in totality from the standards of what are we losing, what are we comparing to, the training costs and experience going out the door, what is the general overall cost to public safety in the community, and all the other impacts, and not to just compare salary to salary.
Commissioner Duvall asked Mr. Jacobs what options he has devised for immediate action which can be taken to help alleviate this situation; Mr. Jacobs suggested hiring certified officers at the certified officer level, not at the non-certified officer level, noting that this will raise the hiring level by 7 1/2% immediately. There was discussion of granting a bonus; however, the Sheriff has some reservations about that, and there was discussion of the "Performance for Pay" plan. Mr. Jacobs stated he will consider the possibility of creating a police officer level 3 position; Commissioner Duvall requested that a close analysis of the turnover in the Sheriff's Department be done. The Sheriff reviewed the internal survey with the Board, conducted by CSU, which indicated that inadequate pay is the single most important thing causing employees to be dissatisfied with their employment with the Larimer County Sheriff's Department and is the greatest weakness in the department.
After much in-depth discussion, the Board concurred that Sheriff Shockley, Mr. Jacobs, and Mr. Lancaster should work together to compile the figures to determine what it would cost to raise the salaries for the sergeants, corporals, and patrol officers to 7% below the 50th percentile, which is the captains level; Commissioner Disney requested they also consider the "Pay for Performance" plan. The Board stated they understand and appreciate the job all the officers do and they respect the danger and difficulty of their jobs, their contribution to public safety, and their importance to the public; they noted, however, that they have to look at the entire budget picture and at the fairness to all the departments when considering salary increases. Another meeting will be scheduled with the Board in two weeks to review the costs and findings of Sheriff Shockley, Mr. Jacobs, and Mr. Lancaster.
The meeting recessed at 11:30 a.m.
LAND-USE PLANNING MEETING
(#68 & #69)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:00 p.m. in regular session with Director of Planning Larry Timm. Chair Clarke presided; Commissioners Disney and Duvall were present. Also present were: Rob Helmick, Planner II; Russell Legg, Chief Planner; Rex Burns, Project Engineer; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
APPROVAL OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION HEARING DECISIONS
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the recommendations and decisions made by the Board of Referees for the hearings held on July 25, 1996.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
1. EAGLE RANCH ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(#95-MS0825): NE 1/4 21-06-68, SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 32,
1/2 OF A MILE WEST OF INTERSTATE 25; 150.51 ACRES;
60 LOTS; AP-AIRPORT ZONING
This is a request to divide 150 acres into 60 single family residential lots ranging in size from .53-.99 acres; the average lot size is .64 acres. This application was previously denied by the BCC as CDL Subdivision. Mr. Helmick noted for the record that this matter was heard by the Board on July 8, 1996 and tabled at that time to allow time to receive comments regarding the impact of this proposal from Mr. Anderton, Airport Manager, and from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland; he noted that in the staff report, there is a copy of the letter received from Mr. Anderton in which he made several recommendations regarding construction and landscaping and suggested the need for both an avigation easement and a fair disclosure statement to be attached to the deed of each and every lot or unit sold. As a result of these suggestions, Mr. Helmick offered a modification to condition #10 and the addition of two new conditions #25 & #26 (as included below). Discussion and questions from the Board followed.
John Barnett, representing Eagle Ranch Associates, stated that the applicant is in agreement with the modification to condition #10 and the addition of conditions #25 & #26, but suggested a clause be added to conditions #25 and #26 that the form provided by the airport manager be mutually agreed upon by the developer and the airport manager; the Board concurred with the suggestion and the conditions of the Planning Commission/Staff recommendation for approval of the Preliminary Master Plan and Preliminary Plat of Eagle Ranch Estates PUD were amended as follows: 1) Park fees shall be paid at the time of building permit, in the amount of $315; 2) Road fees shall be paid at the time of building permit, the amount to be determined prior to the time of Final Plat approval; 3) School fees shall be paid at the time of building permit; 4) Engineered footing and foundations shall be required on all structures; 5) Passive testing for radon gas of all residential structures shall be conducted prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy; 6) The applicant shall submit for review and approval, prior to Final Plat, a final landscape plan. The plan shall respond to the concerns raised by the County Forester, Engineering Department, Soil Conservation District, and the utility providers; 7) The applicant shall, if necessary, prepare for review and approval, a wetland mitigation plan prior to Final Plat; 8) The applicant shall prepare for review and approval a final drainage plan; 9) The plat shall be noted to reflect the proximity of this site to the airport and overflights; 10) The plat shall be noted to require residential construction to mitigate noise from the airport; this shall include the following: a minimum of R-30 insulation in all attic spaces, double pane windows, heavier than code shingles, and a requirement that all residences shall be air conditioned; 11) The plat shall be noted to advise property owners and purchaser of the existence of the adjacent sludge disposal operation; 12) The applicant shall obtain final commitments for service for water and sewer service. The applicant shall petition the property into the South Fort Collins Sanitation District; 13) Homeowner's documents shall reflect the responsibility of the HOA for maintenance of roads and common areas; this shall include the wetland areas and agricultural lands and include management plans; 14) Final approval from the Colorado State Engineer, or the appropriate entity)s) on pond and water use for the common areas; 15) The Final Plat shall reflect the required ROW dedication of 60 feet; 16) The final construction plans shall include the construction of the recommended deceleration lane and left turn lanes at the entrance onto CR 32; 17) The covenants and plans shall not allow any street lights or freestanding yard lights, except as required for public safety; i.e., road intersections; 18) Prior to Final Plat, the applicant shall assure delivery of irrigation water to adjacent lots through dedication of an easement or acceptable alternative; 19) The plan shall be revised to relocate the two western cul-de-sacs as far to the south as possible to eliminate or reduce the areas which will be difficult to maintain; 20) The plan shall be revised to include a boulevard/divided roadway into the site to end at the first split in the road and shall be limited in the number of lots which can be built until a full publicly dedicated roadway is available as a secondary access. The number of units to be built shall be determined by the Poudre Fire Authority prior to the submission of the Final Plat; 21) The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department recommendations as detailed in their letter of May 9, 1996; 22) Notification that there is a sludge disposal operation in the area shall be added as a permanent addition to the covenants; 23) Notification that there is adjacent agricultural uses and pesticide uses in the area shall be added as a permanent addition to the covenants; 24) Notification that as the area grows, there is the potential for even more overflights than what is there the day someone buys property shall be added as a permanent condition to the covenants; 25) All lot transfers shall be required to include a Fair Disclosure Statement in the form provided by the Loveland Fort Municipal Airport Manager and mutually agreed upon by the developer and airport manager; 26) The developer shall grant an Avigation Easement over the entire property; the easement granted shall be in the form provided by the Fort Collins Municipal Airport manager, and mutually agreed upon by the developer and airport manager.
Jim Hammond, adjacent property owner, addressed the Board and stated he is still concerned about the impact of the airport on this subdivision and noted there are already noise complaints from property owners to the north; he doesn't think the waivers, disclosures, or notices on the property titles will solve the problem and eventually the responsibility will come back to the Board for allowing this project in an area where it should not be. Cora Charpentier stated she has 30 years in selling developments and in a 5-year period sold over 3000 homes directly in the path of George Air Force Base in California; she noted that when the closings were taking place, an addendum attached to the sales contract was read to the prospective buyers, which they were required to sign, stating they were in full knowledge of the impacts from the air force base. Karen Rose reviewed her involvement with the recently adopted Corridor Plan and the proposed Partnership Land Use System (PLUS), and noted she is a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee for PLUS, which the Board has charged with reviewing all the work of all the committees created to develop the land use system; she noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee's job is to test that work for fairness - fairness to the citizenry, the community, the landowners, and to future generations. Ms. Rose noted that this project is based on the ideals of the 35-Acre Task Force, the regulations of the Corridor Plan, and the soon-to-be PLUS wish list for good development; she stated that it not only meets those ideals and requirements, it exceeds them. Ms. Rose stated that the 35-Acre codification is proposing good alternative planning and this development is for quality environment, compatibility between people and the environment, and will provide what Larimer County is historically known for- -progress and creativity.
At this time the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner's comments; Commissioner Duvall stated that she has three major reasons why, in her opinion, this is not the right location for this project, they are: 1) Adjacent to a sewage sludge disposal site; 2) Directly under the flight pattern for the airport; 3) Conflicts with agricultural uses in the area. Commissioner Disney stated that this proposal is basically a good design, and even though he agrees it is in the wrong location, it meets the rules and regulations that exist at this time. Chair Clarke shares the concern regarding the location; however, this project does fit with the guidelines of the Corridor Plan and out of fairness to the people, it is important that, when the guidelines, rules, regulations are followed and zoning is compatible, they should be allowed to proceed with their plans. Commissioner Duvall disagreed with her colleagues and stated that the Board's job is to decide when exceptions to policy should take place to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Larimer County and decide what is in the best interests for the citizens and, in her opinion, this proposal is not in that best interest.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and Planning Commission/Staff recommendations and approve the Eagle Ranch Estates Planned Unit Development (#95-MS0825), with the conditions as amended.
Motion carried 2 - 1; Commissioner Duvall dissenting.
2. VISTA VIEW ESTATES PUD CHANGE OF CONDITIONS (#94-MS0505):
SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 25-06-69 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 57TH STREET
(COUNTY ROAD 28), 1/2 MILE EAST OF U. S. HIGHWAY 287,
NORTHEAST CORNER OF MONROE AND 57TH STREET; 34.63
ACRES; 93 LOTS; R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING
This is a request for modification of the language of a previously stated condition of approval requiring 1/3 brick siding on the homes. Mr. Legg noted for the record that this request was heard last week and, at that time, the Board approved two of the changes of conditions being requested and tabled their decision until today pending further communication between the neighborhood and the developer regarding the requirement that the 1/3 brick siding could be replaced with other approved types of materials. Staff findings include: 1) Vista View Estates PUD was approved on June 27, 1994; 2) The 1/3 brick requirement was negotiated between the County and the developer and evidence has not been presented to justify modification of the requirement. The staff recommendation is for denial of the request to modify the brick siding requirement.
Roger Clark, attorney for the applicant, reviewed the events subsequent to last week's meeting with the Board; he noted that last Wednesday Mr. Morganti, architect for this project, provided a list of other materials as proposed alternatives to brick, which was revised to include more information with respect to durability, maintenance and value. Mr. Clark noted that this information was made available to Ms. Kuhlman on Thursday and also sent by FAX to Mr. Legg. Mr. Clark submitted copies of that list for the Board's review, which included the alternative materials to brick as stone, stone veneer, stucco, and exterior insulation finish (EIFS).
Sandy Gleich, adjacent property owner, addressed the Board and stated that after receiving the list of alternate materials, she called two architects and visited a stone company and what she found differs with Mr. Morganti's statements that all the materials listed are long-term, low maintenance, and equal to brick. Ms. Gleich asked a series of questions of the architects and stone company and the answers were all the same--brick and stone were of much lower maintenance compared to stucco and EIFS, brick was a little less in cost than stone and equal to stucco or EIFS, brick and stone held up the best for the cost and long term low maintenance, and brick and stone are a much better insulator due to the density, thickness and materials. Ms. Gleich stated that there are many different colors of brick and 25 different variations of colors, styles and types of stone and with 93 homes in the subdivision, it wouldn't take much imagination for all 93 homes to have a different look. Ms. Gleich noted that after talking to 24 of the homeowners in the area, they are willing to offer a fair compromise of using either brick or stone on 1/3 of the entire surface of the homes and omit all other alternatives. Kathy Kuhlman stated that the more dense a subdivision becomes, the more critical the elements of design become, and in a high density subdivision where the lots are small and the homes are close to each other, there needs to be some common element or theme that is carried throughout the development; she noted that they do support diversity and would like to be assured that the 1/3 brick requirement is adhered to on the homes which have been built to date and she agrees with limiting the list of alternative materials to be used for the 1/3 siding of the entire house to brick and stone. Paul Bonomo asked a number of questions, such as: 1) What conditions does the developer have to meet to lift the building permit hold; Mr. Legg responded that if the conditions are not met within a reasonable time, it will be brought to the Board to authorize legal action. Mr. Bonomo stated that he has learned that no matter how much effort you put into working with the developer, or if you get conditions put onto the plat, the Board cannot be trusted to actually enforce those conditions and he noted that this action will be recognized by other developers; he concurred that he also does not support the alternate material of stucco. Mr. Morganti addressed the workmanship and proposed alternate materials; he stated that any material that is not put in properly is not going to last and will require maintenance.
At this time the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and opened for Commissioner's comments: Commissioner Disney stated that he is willing to live with brick and stone, as offered as a compromise by the neighbors, as these two materials will provide enough variety. Chair Clarke responded to some of the issues and questions raised during today's hearing; he noted that this is not a process of arbitration and the Board has been trustworthy to follow through on requirements by placing the building permit hold on the property as an effective way to make the point that they are not going to stand for violations. With regard to stucco, he described his personal experiences with stucco and thinks it is a good siding and noted it is expensive. Commissioner Duvall stated that this is not a matter of whether or not we like stucco or stone, she thinks the Board should require brick, which was the original idea, or go to brick and stone, which is what the neighbors offered as a compromise.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board of County Commissioners modify the requirement that was originally made that 1/3 of the exterior siding will be brick or stone.
Chair Clarke passed the gavel to Commissioner Duvall in order for him to offer an amendment to the motion.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION
Commissioner Clark moved that the Board of County Commissioners allow stucco as an alternate material, in addition to brick and stone.
Motion denied 1 - 2; Chair Pro-Tem Duvall and Commissioner Disney dissenting.
Chair Pro-Tem Duvall passed the gavel back to Commissioner Clarke.
Mr. Legg requested clarification of the term "stone" and whether or not this includes stone veneer; after considerable discussion, it was decided that the definition under "stone" on the list of alternate materials submitted by Mr. Morganti, which includes solid wall or veneer application, will be acceptable; but not the stone veneer definition of man-made simulated stone.
Original Motion carried 3 - 0.
Mr. Legg also requested clarification of the building permit hold in relation to the construction of the fence on the east side of the subdivision; Mr. Legg noted that the plan he outlined previously indicated that when a building permit hold is placed on a subdivision and, when there is a clear violation of a condition, that hold can be lifted when a plan is presented to get the fence in place in a reasonable time period for its construction and settlement of the boundary dispute that caused the problem. However, if they run into more difficulty and it will take several months of negotiations with the neighbors, he will come to the Board for adjustment of that time line. Mr. Clark stated he was just advised that there has been a verbal agreement reached with the property owner involved in the boundary dispute and it should be finalized shortly and construction of the fence should be started by mid August; if it should take longer, he will come back to the Board. Commissioner Disney recommended that the building permit hold remain in place until a written plan is presented. A question arose regarding the house already built which does not have enough brick on it. Mr. Legg advised the Board that the builder must comply with the 1/3 brick siding requirement, and he must receive certification that compliance of that condition has been satisfied; if not, it will be a zoning violation.
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1996
(#70 & #69 @ 500)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Clarke presided; Commissioners Disney and Duvall were present. Also present were: Russ Legg, Chief Planner; Carol Evans, Planner I; Ralph Jacobs, Human Resources Director; Patsi Maroney, Compensation & Benefits Specialist; Dr. Keith Olson, Mental Health Director; Rex Smith, Public Works Director; Elaine Spencer, County Engineer; Loyd Berry, County Agronomist; and Donna Hart, Assistant to the County Manager. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.
1. OPEN SESSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Gerald F. Thomas, Electrical Contractor, discussed the delays he has experienced trying to build a project in LaPorte and the disadvantage the small builder has in meeting timelines, which is affected by the process you have to go through for the County and impeded by the ability to move forward from the financing standpoint; he stated he would like to see the system streamlined and noted there is too much duplication of effort and too much time lag. He described his particular problem in that he brought his project into Mr. Legg's Office 5 weeks ago and was informed at that time that approval of his project had expired in February; he thought he was 30 days from building and now because of the process he must go through again, it could be December before he can start. He asked if there is any way this duplication of effort can be eliminated. Mr. Legg stated that within the process the County is working on now, they are trying to look for ways to streamline the process where more things can be approved administratively and he admitted that what Mr. Thomas is describing is a well-known problem with the existing system; he noted that this project will go before LAPAC in August and is scheduled before the Board on September 3, 1996. Discussion of allowing the first time extension to be handled administratively and not requiring the applicant to go through the whole process a second time followed. Chair Clarke informed Mr. Thomas that the problem is that his approval did run out of time and he concurred with him that the current process is way too slow; the Board told Mr. Thomas they wished they could help him, but at this time they cannot.
2. SMART GROWTH CITATION: Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that the Planning Department and the 35-Acre Task Force applied for the Governor's Smart Growth Award for the work being done by the 35-Acre Task Force; he noted that they have been recognized for their outstanding efforts in smart growth and development. Mr. Legg asked if it would be possible to ask the Governor's Office to provide an award certificate for each member of the Task Force member because they have worked so hard; the Board concurred and suggested possibly having an award ceremony to present the certificates. Commissioner Disney suggested that Maggie Carter receive one also; Mr. Lancaster will contact the Governor's Office to request ten more of the Smart Growth Citations.
3. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE FRANK MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPEAL: Ms. Evans reviewed the Frank MRD appeal, which was heard by the Board in May of this year; she noted that the applicant has submitted another appeal asking for reconsideration of the denial. Ms. Evans stated that if another hearing was scheduled, staff would still recommend denial. Much discussion followed and the Board reaffirmed their original decision and stated they do not think the 2.6 acre lot would be compatible with the other 35+ acre parcels in the area and noted that there are no extenuating circumstances evident to waive the policy. Ms. Evans will inform the applicant of the Board's decision.
4. DISCUSSION OF MENTAL HEALTH CENTER APPOINTED STAFF: Dr. Olson requested Board approval of the appointment of Dr. Lillian Mezey as Medical Director and authorization to increase her rate of pay to $59 per hour; Mr. Jacobs indicated he is supportive of the request.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners appoint Dr. Lillian Mezey as Medical Director for the Larimer County Mental Health Center at a pay rate of $59 per hour, as requested by Dr. Olson.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
5. JOINT BENEFIT BIDDING WITH FORT COLLINS AND LOVELAND: Ms. Maroney informed the Board that last year the benefits consultant for the City of Fort Collins asked the Human Resources Department if they might be interested in joining forces with other local governmental agencies to try a "joint bid" process for any portion of the benefits package to explore the potential cost savings through the creation of a larger group. Ms. Maroney noted that several meetings were held to determine which entities might be interested; those interested entities include the City of Fort Collins, City of Loveland, Town of Estes Park, Poudre School District, Platte River Power Authority, and Larimer County. The group decided that the cost of paying the fee for the bid process would be split between the participating entities proportionally; she informed the Board that by participating in the joint bid process will not require any of the entities to change to a new coverage after the bid process is completed, if they do not choose to do so. Ms. Maroney stated that the requests for proposals will be for 5 plans and Larimer County will participate in the joint bidding of only 2 of the 5 plans: 1) Life, Accidental Death, and Supplemental Life Insurance and 2) Long-Term Disability Insurance. The combined estimated fee for bidding these two plans is approximately $5,000. Discussion and questions from the Board followed.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Duvall moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the County's participation in a joint bidding process for two benefits plans for Life/Accidental Death/Supplemental Life Insurance and Long-Term Disability Insurance and authorize the expenditure of $5,000 to the Human Resources Department to pay Segal Company's fees as benefits consultant for this special project; funds to be derived from carry over from the General Fund.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
6. DISCUSSION OF TRAFFIC NEAR TAVELLI SCHOOL: In response to a letter from Doug Anderson responding to Ms. Spencer's previous letter concerning the growing safety problems around Tavelli Elementary School, Chair Clarke requested discussion among the Board so they will have a better understanding of the situation in this area. Ms. Spencer stated that there are only 9 children in this area that walk to school and their is a pedestrian signal for them; the remainder of the students are bussed to school. Ms. Spencer stated that, in their opinion, 9 children are not enough to cause a real traffic problem and to warrant a signal; she noted that there are other children that do ride their bikes and walk to school, but bussing is available for them and they should utilize that form of transportation. The parking situation around Tavelli School was discussed; Ms. Spencer stated that personally she doesn't think parking should be allowed on the side of the road and she recommended that "No Parking" signs be placed along the fence on the west side. Ms. Spencer noted that the school has created an attractive nuisance after hours by putting in new playground equipment which is used by many. Much discussion followed; Chair Clarke stated that the problem is we have a rural area with urban density and not proper infrastructure in place. It was noted that the homeowners are working on forming a general improvement district in this area and it was suggested that possibly sidewalks should be included as a part of their district, and include arrangements for maintenance; Mr. Smith and Ms. Spencer are not sure this can be included in the GID, but will check for sure and will offer this suggestion to Mr. Anderson. The Board stated they want to do whatever is possible to provide sidewalks to Tavelli School.
7. STREET IMPACT FEES - LOVELAND UGA: Ms. Spencer stated that the City of Loveland is asking Larimer County to consider the adoption of the street impact fees as currently established by the City of Loveland; she noted that this fee would be collected for any new building permit within the UGA and this would be an interim policy to help Loveland to begin to address impacts of development/building outside the City limits. Ms. Spencer noted that if the Board decides to do this, it will be necessary to work with the City of Loveland to determine who collects the fees and she stated that this is not a fee in lieu of improvements.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the collection of street impact fees as currently established by the City of Loveland for new developments within the Loveland Urban Growth Area.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
8. INTERIM STREET FEE POLICY: Ms. Spencer noted that previously the Board directed staff to prepare a resolution that would be in effect until an Impact Fee document is developed by the PLUS process; she submitted a draft resolution requiring construction by developers for off-site and adjacent road improvements rather than waiving those improvements and collecting a fee. Chair Clarke stated he was concerned about the public process as they haven't talked to any of the other affected interests; he thinks the resolution is premature as it would be a major change to the IGA policy. Commissioner Duvall suggested that we talk to Ms. Haag to see if this can be an administrative change or if a public hearing is required. Mr. Lancaster agrees there should be an open meeting on this subject for public comment; the Board concurred and directed Mr. Lancaster to schedule that meeting.
9. UPDATE ON WEED CONTROL EFFORTS: Mr. Berry provided an update on the weed control efforts in Larimer County; he noted that we are unique in that we have a weed district inside the County. Mr. Berry presented a large map showing the boundaries of the weed district; he noted that the people within the weed district voted to tax themselves for weed control within their district and he stated that legally he cannot to do weed control outside the district, unless he is compensated. Mr. Berry stated that the weed district cannot be expanded; however, it can be dissolved, but then the funding will be lost. Mr. Lancaster stated that one possibility to consider is that this question can become a ballot issue whether or not to eliminate the current weed district and create a weed district county wide. Discussion followed; Chair Clarke requested that careful research be done to determine the cost for expanding the district versus the revenue gained but noted that the Board is willing to consider the change.
-- Items for Policy Worksession: Mr. Lancaster submitted a worksheet listing the subjects to be discussed during the upcoming Policy Worksessions and the projected dates for some of those subjects; the Board reviewed the worksheet and several suggestions and revisions were made.
-- Invitations: Ms. Hart reviewed the pending invitations with the Board and they indicated to her which events they could attend.
11. DOCUMENT REVIEW:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Minutes for the week of July 22, 1996, as submitted.
Motion carried 2 - 0; Commissioner Duvall did not vote as she was out of town last week and did not attend the meetings.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Schedule for the week of August 5, 1996, as submitted.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following documents as listed on the Consent Agenda on Document Review for July 31, 1996:
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS: Check Warrant Register for June 96' for Social Services Department; Larimer County ETS Master Contract Close-Out PY 93 ALC06 Documents; Letter to Pinewood Springs General Improvement District #2 Road Board Members; Appointment of Deputy with Oath for Thomas Lee Lynch; Ptarmigan 3rd - Lots 18-19 B1 3 AP Plat. LIQUOR LICENSES: Licenses were issued to: Nightingales - 6% WITH EXTENDED HOURS - Fort Collins, CO.; J.J.'s Country Corner - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO.; and Ptarmigan Club - 6% WITH EXTENDED HOURS & EXTENDED HOURS - Fort Collins, CO. County approval was granted to: Waive of Hearing for a Special Events License for Vajradhatu Seminary, 4921 County Road 68-C, Red Feather Lakes, CO. for a 6% Malt, Vinous & Spirituous Liquor License, and a Waive of Hearing for a Special Events License for the Greater Ran Club Spirit Committee, CSU Hughes Stadium Parking Lot, Fort Collins, CO. for a 3.2% Fermented Malt Beverage License.
A96-104 AGREEMENT CONCERNING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON
COUNTY ROAD 21C BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND ELIZABETH G. ALLEN (Project #171)
A96-105 AGREEMENT CONCERNING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON
COUNTY ROAD 21C BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND KENNETH P. AND LINDA L. FISHER
A96-106 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF
THORNTON (Project #191)
C96-46 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
R96-114s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION NAMING A PREVIOUSLY
UNNAMED STREET MILLS DRIVE IN THE ROCKY
MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK HEADQUARTERS AREA
R96-115s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION TO NAME ROADS IN BLUE
R96-116s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF A
UTILITY EASEMENT IN LINDENWOOD 1ST FILING
R96-117z SPECIAL REVIEW FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE PETITION OF FORT COLLINS IN-LINE SPORTRINK
Motion carried 3 - 0.
At this time, Assistant County Attorney Jeannine Haag and Ralph Jacobs joined the meeting for Legal Matters.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PERSONNEL ISSUE & LEGAL MATTERS:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session at 11:35 a.m. to discuss a personnel issue and legal matters.
Motion carried 3 - 0.
The Board came out of Executive Session at 11:55 a.m.; no action taken.
JOHN CLARKE, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
( S E A L )
Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk