Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1997

LAND-USE PLANNING MEETING

(#253)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. in regular session with Larry Timm, Director of Planning. Chair Disney presided and Commissioner Olson was present. Also present were: Al Kadera, Subdivision Administrator; Richael Michels, Dan Tasman, and Keith Schuett, Planners II; Russ Legg, Chief Planner; Rob Helmick, Senior Planner; Lonnie Sheldon, Project Engineer; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Engineer; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Chair Disney noted that the following are consent items and will not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Commissioners or members of the audience.

1. KAUFFMAN AND SON PIT SPECIAL REVIEW TIME EXTENSION

(#92-ZR0152): NE 1/4 OF 20-5-68 - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY

ROAD 93 AND COUNTY ROAD 20; 9.85 ACRES; I-INDUSTRIAL ZONING

This is a request to extend the time allowed on a Special Review for two years to allow for proper reclamation on the site; the existing Special Review is valid through December 14, 1997. Staff findings include: 1) The Kauffman Pit was approved in 1992 allowing five years for mining and reclamation; 2) The applicants need additional time to complete the required reclamation plan; 3) The approval of this subdivision, with certain conditions, should not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of existing residents. The staff recommendation is for approval of the request to allow two additional years for the completion of the Kauffman Pit, with the following conditions: 1) No mining activities shall occur on the property after December 14, 1997; 2) Reclamation of the pit shall be completed by December 14, 1999.

2. SALOMONSON AMENDED MINOR RESIDENT DEVELOPMENT

(#97-EX1029): NE 1/4 19-04-69 - 209 NORTH COUNTY ROAD 23;

154.75 ACRES; 2 LOTS; FA-1 FARMING ZONING

This is a request to adjust the boundary line between two lots in the Salomonson MRD. Staff findings are: 1) The proposed Salomonson Amended MRD is in compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Plan, the Larimer County Zoning Resolution, and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution; 2) The project is compatible with other development in the surrounding area; 3) Approval of the project will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure; 4) Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the project. The staff recommendation is for approval of the Salomonson MRD.

3. OWASSA LAKE SUBDIVISION LOT 37A, BLOCK 28 AMENDED PLAT

(#97-SA1118): 27-10-73 IN RED FEATHER LAKES

This is a request to combine an existing lot with an adjacent unplatted parcel. Staff findings include: 1) The proposed Amended Plat is in compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Plan, the Larimer C County Zoning Resolution, and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution; 2) The Amended Plat is compatible with other development in the surrounding area; 3) Approval of the Amended Play will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure; 4) Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the Amended Plat. The staff recommendation is for approval of Owassa Lake Subdivision, Lot 37A, Block 28 Amended Plat.

4. HIAWATHA HEIGHTS, LOT 1, BLOCK 20 AMENDED PLAT (#97-SA1119):

29-10-73 IN RED FEATHER LAKES; .2 ACRES; 1 LOT; O-OPEN ZONING

This is a request to combine an existing lot with an adjacent unplatted parcel to correct an encroachment. Staff findings are: 1) The proposed Amended Plat is in compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Plan, the Larimer County Zoning Resolution, and the Larimer County Subdivision Resolution; 2) The Amended Plat is compatible with other development in the surrounding area; 3) Approval of the Amended Plat will not result in any significant impacts to neighboring properties, the natural environment, or the provision of services and infrastructure; 4) Property values in the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the Amended Plat. The staff recommendation is for approval of Hiawatha Heights, Lot 1, Block 20 Amended Plat.

5. KOELLNER MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RELEASE OF

COLLATERAL (#92-EX0014): NW 1/4 24-07-68 - SOUTH OF COUNTY

ROAD 44 (PROSPECT) AND 1/4 MILE EAST OF COUNTY ROAD 3

This is a request for release of collateral for Koellner MRD. The staff recommendation is for approval of the request for the release of collateral for Koellner Minor Residential Development, as all required improvements for the MRD have been completed.

6. HIGHLAND PLACE AMENDED PLAT FOR LOTS 35 & 36 (#97-SA1104):

25-08-69 - NORTH SIDE OF GREGORY ROAD, EAST OF TERRY LAKE

ROAD; 8.6 ACRES; 2 LOTS; R-RESIDENTIAL ZONING

This is a request to reconfigure three existing lots resulting in two building sites. Staff findings are: 1) Highland Place is a very old subdivision where lots have been redivided many times over the years. This request is intended to consolidate two lots and move a building site. We started with three lots and two building sites and we end up with two lots and two building sites; 2) The County Health and Engineering Department, and all utilities serving this area, reviewed the proposed Amended Plat and stated no objections. The staff recommendation is for approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 35 & 36, Highland Place Subdivision.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and staff recommendation and approve the Kauffman and Son Pit Special Review Time Extension (#92-ZR0152); Salomonson Amended Minor Residential Development (#97-EX1029); Owassa Lake Subdivision (#97-SA1118); Hiawatha Heights Lot 1, Block 20 Amended Plat (#97-SA1119); the Koellner Minor Residential Development Release of Collateral (#92-EX0014); and the Highland Place Amended Plat for Lots 35 & 36 (#97-SA1104); each, with conditions as outlined.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

7. LOCKMAN MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPEAL

(#97-EX1117): NE 1/4 OF SECTION 17, T8N, R68, SOUTH OF COUNTY

ROAD 58 (COLORADO HIGHWAY 1) 1/4 MILE EAST OF COUNTY

ROAD 9; 56.6561 ACRES; O-OPEN ZONING

This is a request to allow the processing of an MRD application on property that does not meet the minimum application requirements (the property has been part of a previous approved exemption). Mr. Schuett provided the background information and reviewed the major issues and concerns; he noted that the property was part of a subdivision exemption that was approved for T and D Farms in 1975 that created four parcels. A condition of that approval required the property owners to add two parcels together to create one parcel (56.6561 acres) and an add-on agreement was approved and recorded with the exemption which states "said single parcel shall not again be divided in two or more parcels without compliance with the provisions of said Larimer County Subdivision regulations either by filing a subdivision plat or obtaining approval of an exemption". The applicants are requesting to use the MRD process to divide the parcel of 56.6561 acres into parcels of 10 acres and 36 acres rather than going through the subdivision application process. Staff findings are: 1) The Minor Residential Development Regulations were amended in 1993 by the Board of County Commissioners to allow applications for Minor Residential Developments to be processed on properties not divided since 1972; 2) The Board of County Commissioners amended the Minor Residential Development process in 1993 to limit the types of parcels that are eligible to be divided without going through the full subdivision process; 3) The subdivision process is available to divide parcels that are not eligible for consideration under the Minor Residential Development process. A subdivision request on this property would be reviewed by the Larimer County Planning Commission prior to a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners; 4) Planning staff finds no unique or special conditions about this property or any public benefit to waiving the requirements of the regulations. One justification of waiving the requirements may be an economic benefit to the property owner. However, that justification could apply to virtually any other property in the County and is not a unique situation; 5) Approval of this appeal would set a precedent for this area for further Minor Residential Development appeals to further divide existing exemption lots; 6) The Planning Department is not likely to support the proposed division using the Minor Residential Development application process; 7) The approval of this appeal could incorrectly indicate to the applicant that the Board of County Commissioners will approve the resulting Minor Residential Development application; 8) Denial of this appeal will not prevent the applicant from applying for a subdivision. The staff recommendation is for denial of the Lockman Minor Residential Development appeal.

Larry McCrery, agent for the applicants, stated that this was two parcels before 1975 and was added back together to facilitate the split of several other parcels and he noted that they are taxed as two separate parcels; he stated that when the appeal was denied before, it was because there was no road frontage, so they redesigned the proposal and now both parcels would have access to Highway 1. Mr. McCrery stated that since they are only asking for two lots, the applicants felt the MRD process was the right process to go through. Karen Lockman, applicant, stated that they are requesting the MRD application because they are not land developers nor qualified to do a subdivision and economically, if they go through the subdivision process, they would have to divide the property into more than two lots, which they don't want to do.

Chair Disney stated that the reason the MRD policy was established was to prevent land being chopped up, so in order for the Board to approve a waiver of policy, there has to be a good reason and public benefit derived; in this case, he does not see any public benefit. Commissioner Olson asked several questions about multiple accesses to the highway and the differences between the MRD and subdivision process; Mr. Sheldon stated that to meet the access criteria for spacing, two lots are better than multiple and, for the record, he noted that road improvements are currently being made at Highway 1 and County Road 9 directly east of this project. Mr. Schuett stated that the difference between the MRD and subdivision process is that the latter is a more detailed review which includes access, compatibility issues, design, etc. Mr. Timm stated that with the subdivision process, you have internal access roads, a system of drainage, a system of utilities, etc., and with a MRD, you don't look at the surrounding area and create a system - it is just split.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and staff recommendation and deny the Lockman Minor Residential Development Appeal (#A97-EX1117).

Motion carried 2 - 0.

7. ZIMDAHL MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPEAL (#97-

EX1225): 13-06-69 - ONE MILE NORTHEAST OF WAVERLY ON

CR 68; 49.5 ACRES; 2 LOTS; O-OPEN ZONING

This is a request to allow processing of a Minor Residential Development on property exempted in 1986; the proposal is to divide the property into a 10 acre and a 30.5 acre parcel. Mr. Helmick provided the project description and location of the proposal and reviewed the major concerns and issues; he noted that the purpose of the request is for estate planning and the applicants have no intention of building a residence on the property. Staff findings include: 1) The Minor Residential Development process was amended in February of 1993 to limit the types of parcels that are eligible to be divided without going through the full subdivision process; 2) The full subdivision process is available to divide parcels that are not eligible for consideration under the Minor Residential Development process. A subdivision request on this property would be reviewed by the Larimer County Planning Commission prior to hearing with the County Commissioners; 3) This parcel was created after 1972, by the approval of the Martin Exemption in 1986, and is not eligible for the Minor Residential Development process; 4) Staff does not find circumstances or conditions of this property to be sufficient to justify waiver of the regulations. The staff recommendation is for denial of the Zimdahl Minor Residential Development Appeal.

Bob Zimdahl, applicant, assured the Board that they do not plan to build a home or sell the property and the division is for estate planning only; he stated he does not want to violate the County's policy, he only wants to do what is right for their children and to figure out ways to protect what they have from the Federal Government. Mr. Zimdahl stated that it is a complicated estate they are trying to plan with six children involved and they are making this request on the advice of counsel. Questions from the Board and discussion followed; it was noted that there is no public benefit to be gained from allowing this appeal to be granted and, if allowed, it would set a precedent.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the staff findings and staff recommendation and deny the Zimdahl Minor Residential Development Appeal (#97-EX1225).

Motion carried 2 - 0.

The hearing recessed at 3:30 p.m.

LIQUOR LICENSE HEARINGS

(#254)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened for a Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m., with County Attorney George Hass, to consider two liquor license applications. Chair Disney presided and Commissioner Olson was present. Recording Clerk, Gael Cookman.

1. LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR ALAN EVANS, DBA AL'S

CANYON GRILLE AT 4701 W. COUNTY ROAD 38, FORT COLLINS,

COLORADO

Mr. Hass reviewed the application and explained that attorney Robert A. Dill would be presenting the application on behalf of Mr. Evans. Mr. Dill briefly described the background of the establishment and called Mr. Evans to be sworn in by Chair Disney. Mr. Evans explained that he has been involved with this establishment since May of 1997, and after the license was surrendered by the previous tenant, he decided to apply for the liquor license himself. Mr. Dill had Mr. Evans verify the exhibits presented, which included photos of posting the notice of application at the establishment, petitions, and five letters of support that were mailed to the County Clerk's office. Chair Disney asked how Mr. Evans planned to monitor the State Liquor Codes. Mr. Evans indicated that he was aware of and would comply with the State Liquor Codes and that he was willing to provide training for his staff to better handle problems that might arise when serving alcohol to customers; he also explained that he had purchased a surveillance camera to better assist him with monitoring the customers and reviewing incidents should they occur. Mr. Dill called Chad Wydella to the podium to be sworn in by Chair Disney; Mr. Wydella stated that he recently moved from the neighborhood of the Canyon Grille, but that he was in support of this establishment and felt that there was a need for it within the neighborhood. Mr. Dill then asked all those present in the audience who were in support of this establishment to stand; at this point, a great majority of the members of the audience stood up to show support in granting the license. Mr. Dill asked if there were any members of the audience that were in opposition to a liquor license being granted to this establishment; there were no members of the audience opposed to this. Mr. Dill then called Brett Mansur to the podium to be sworn in. Mr. Mansur explained that his company circulated a petition to the surrounding neighborhood to determine the needs and desires of the community; he described the process used and noted the results of the poll indicated that 92% of those surveyed supported issuing a liquor license for this establishment.

Mr. Hass asked if there was any opposition to the application and receiving none, closed the public portion of the hearing. Chair Disney wanted to insure that there will be training for the bartenders of this establishment and Mr. Evans stated that his staff will receive training with regard to selling alcohol.

This matter coming on to be heard this 13th day of October, 1997 as an application from Alan Evans, dba Al's Canyon Grille, for a Hotel Restaurant Liquor License, and the Board of County Commissioners having heard the testimony and evidence has considered the same, and being fully advised on the premises, find that the requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the inhabitants indicate that the said license should be granted. Therefore, it is ordered that a Colorado Liquor License be granted to Alan Evans, dba Al's Canyon Grille, located at 4701 W County Road 38E, Fort Collins, CO.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the application of Alan Evans, dba Al's Canyon Grille, for a Hotel Restaurant Liquor License, located at 4701 W County Road 38 E, Fort Collins, CO 80526, in the County of Larimer, and allow the license to be granted.

Motion carried 2-0.

2. LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR LEE WEIR, DBA HORSETOOTH

LIQUOR AT 4701 W. COUNTY ROAD 38E, UNIT #1, FORT COLLINS,

COLORADO

Mr. Hass reviewed the application, noting that item number 26 would need to be stricken from the lease as it gave Mr. Evans, acting as landlord, unlawful rights to the liquor license of this establishment if said license was approved. Mr. Hass also questioned the amount of the lease, as it indicated that the annual rental amount was $500.00; Robert A. Dill, attorney for Mr. Weir, stated that this was an error and it should read $500.00 per month. Mr. Dill also stated that Mr. Evans and Mr. Weir agreed to delete item number 26 from the lease. Mr. Dill then called Mr. Weir to the podium to be sworn in; he asked Mr. Weir to verify the exhibits presented, which included photos of posting the notice of application at the establishment, petitions, and one letter of opposition. Chair Disney asked Mr. Weir to respond to the concerns raised in the letter that siting a liquor store across the street from a baseball park was not a good idea; Mr. Weir indicated that he would be extra careful not to sell to minors or visibly intoxicated individuals. Mr. Mansur was recalled to the podium and stated that the survey results for this application were 86% in favor of approving the liquor store. Mr. Hass asked if any members of the audience were in opposition to this establishment being granted a liquor license, and two people indicated they were opposed.

Brothers Tom and Jeff Ord stated that they were very much opposed to having a 6% liquor store in their neighborhood for the following reasons: 1) The survey conducted by Mr. Mansur only covered four out of the ten subdivisions within the area affected; 2) The Larimer County campgrounds were within walking distance of the proposed establishment and they felt that approval of this establishment would cause more alcohol related incidents and be a burden for the Sheriff's Department to assign more deputy's to the area; 3) A package store selling 6 % alcohol located at the entrance to Horsetooth Park, in which only 3.2% alcohol is allowed, is inviting the law to be broken; and 4) The road up to Horsetooth is very winding and it is a terrible road for accidents. Mr. Dill responded by asking Mr. Jeff Ord if he took the liberty to conduct his own petition to see if others in the remaining neighborhoods actually were in opposition; Mr. Ord stated that he had not conducted any surveys.

Mr. Christopher Krawczak was sworn in and he stated that he was also opposed to a 6% liquor store being approved for the area for many of the same reasons stated by the Ord brothers; he explained that he was the previous tenant and asked several questions regarding the lease and why item number 26 was omitted.

In closing, Mr. Dill stated that the remarks by the Ord brothers were speculative in nature, thus they were inappropriate and should not be considered when the Commissioners rendered a decision. Mr. Hass then closed the public portion of the hearing. Under discussion, both Commissioners Disney and Olson wanted to stress the importance of training the employees to comply with and enforce the liquor codes.

This matter coming on to be heard this 13th day of October, 1997 as an application from Lee Weir, dba Horsetooth Liquor, for a Package Liquor Store, and the Board of County Commissioners having heard the testimony and evidence has considered the same, and being fully advised on the premises, find that the requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the inhabitants indicate that the said license should be granted. Therefore, it is ordered that a Colorado Liquor License be granted to Lee Weir, dba Horsetooth Liquor, located at 4701 W County Road 38E, Fort Collins, Colorado.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the application of Lee Weir, dba Horsetooth Liquor, for a Package Liquor Store License, located at 4701 W County Road 38 E, Unit #1, Fort Collins, CO 80526, in the County of Larimer, and allow the license to be granted.

Motion carried 2-0.

The hearing adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1997

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#255)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Disney presided and Commissioner Olson was present. Also present were: Dennis Miller, Director Planning, Property & Project Services for Thompson School District R2-J; Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager; Janelle Henderson, Director Natural Resources; Rex Smith, Director Public Works; Ralph Jacobs, Director Human Resources; Andy Paratore, Director Information Management; Sheriff Richard Shockley; and Deni LaRue, Community Information Officer. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. OPEN SESSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Tom Bender, Farm Bureau representative, stated that he previously submitted comments and recommendations to the Board from Farm Bureau to be included in the proposed Larimer County Master Plan; he noted that several of those recommendations were included, but the more important recommendations, which have serious consequences on the environmental and economic well-being of the County, were ignored or not considered appropriate and not included in the Plan. Mr. Bender submitted and reviewed several comment sheets of items that they still believe should be reconsidered and included in the Master Plan. Commissioner Olson informed Mr. Bender that the steering committee did review and discuss the original comments and recommendations. Much discussion followed; the Commissioners stated that they will send a copy of these comments to Jill Bennett, Comprehensive Planner.

At this time, Commissioner Clarke joined the meeting.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 6, 1997:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Minutes for the week of October 6, 1997, as submitted.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

3. APPROVAL OF SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 20, 1997:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Schedule for the week of October 20, 1997, as submitted and revised.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following documents as listed on the Consent Agenda on Document Review for October 14, 1997:

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT were approved for the following, as recommended by the County Assessor: Loveland Berthoud Association; Sundance Cottages; Coloradoan Newspaper; Break Point; Affordable Instant Print, Inc.; My Treasurers; Rita and Richard Anderson; Robert & Verna Rodman; Toril Haug; Ralph & Dorinda Hall; Gerald & Carla Kelly; Kenneth & Lesley Halley; V Bar S Company; Kenneth & Margaret Toomey; and David & Patti Stickler.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT: Crystal Lakes 1st Amended Plat for Lots 89 & 91. LIQUOR LICENSES: Licenses were issued to: Fossil Creek Conoco - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO., and Mishawaka Inn, Inc. - 6% - Bellvue, CO.

R97-146s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING STREET NAME

CHANGE IN HIGH DRIVE HEIGHTS

R97-147s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ROSTEK

SUBDIVISION VARIANCE REQUEST

R97-148s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED

PLAT IN CONTINENTAL WEST SUBDIVISION 1ST FILING AND

VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT

R97-149s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED

PLAT IN GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 8TH FILING AND

VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT

R97-150s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED

PLAT IN GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 6TH FILING AND

VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT

R97-151s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED

PLAT AND VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT IN GLACIER

VIEW MEADOWS 8TH FILING

R97-152s FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED

PLAT IN GLACIER VIEW MEADOWS 8TH FILING AND

VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT

R97-153s RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RELEASE OF RESTRICTIONS

ON SALE OF LOTS FOR COMERON PARK 2ND FILING

Motion carried 3 - 0.

5. ENDORSEMENT OF LOVELAND JOINT PLANNING COMMITTEE:

Dennis Miller submitted the Joint Planning Committee Report and requested the Board's endorsement of the Loveland Joint Planning Committee (JPC). Mr. Miller stated that the purpose of the JPC is to explore ways in which local governments can improve efficiency in their delivery of services to a shared constituency and save taxpayer dollars; he reviewed the history of the Committee, noting that the 1997 JPC consisted of twenty-four elected officials, citizen volunteers, and staff members from the City of Loveland, Thompson School District, and Larimer County. Discussion followed; Mr. Miller noted that he will be presenting this same report to the Thompson School District Board of Education tomorrow night and to the Loveland City Council on October 21, 1997.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners heartily endorse the formation of the Loveland Joint Planning Committee.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

6. DISCUSSION OF JACKSON COUNTY REQUEST TO DISPOSE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AT THE LARIMER COUNTY LANDFILL:

Ms. Henderson briefed the Board about Jackson County's desire to dispose of treated sewage sludge from Walden's wastewater treatment plant at the Larimer County Landfill, as part of the agreement Larimer County has with Jackson County to take their trash for free; she noted that to accept this waste, they would have to amend their Certificate of Designation and possibly go through the Planning Department's special review process and this could involve a great deal of time, effort, and expense. Mr. Henderson continued that if the landfill does accept this waste, they will have to establish special handling procedures and possibly invest in additional equipment; her recommendation is for Larimer County to deny this request from Jackson County. Commissioner Clarke suggested that Jackson County talk to one of the special districts who deal with sludge on a normal basis; CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to not accept sewage sludge from Jackson County at the Landfill.

7. REQUEST TO HIRE ABOVE STEP E IN THE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT DIVISION:

Mr. Paratore requested Board approval of a waiver of policy to: 1) Allow flexible staffing of non-Senior to Senior positions; 2) Advertise and hire at the A-M range for current open positions; and 3) Depart from 2-step merit system for Jay Weaver to 3-step merit. Mr. Paratore informed the Board that Information Management has been in the process of reorganizing their department and has been working with Mr. Jacobs regarding these three requests; he noted that currently they have three positions open, and over the last few months they have hired two new people above the E step because, with the current salary structure, it is hard to obtain the talent they need otherwise. Mr. Paratore noted that one of their analysts, Jay Weaver, was originally hired 18 months ago to work on some of the older technologies and systems; however, with the installation of the new FMS system, he has been the lead programmer on the Budget Preparation System, which involved newer technology and has demanded a lot more from him than his original scope of work. Mr. Paratore stated that Mr. Weaver's review is due this month and he is proposing that instead of the traditional 5%, he receive a 7.5% increase in salary. Mr. Jacobs stated that this request is consistent with the Board's earlier statements that they are looking for a compensation program that ties extra compensation more directly to superior performance and he noted he supports the request. Mr. Lancaster noted that at the Budget Conference it became obvious that many Counties are having difficulty getting and keeping good Information Management employees. Discussion followed; Chair Disney asked about the short and long-term budget implications for approving these requests and he requested that in the future, this information be included in the requests.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the waiver of policy to allow flexible staffing of non-senior to senior positions, to advertise and hire at the A-M range for current open positions, and provide a 3-step merit increase for Jay Weaver in the Information Management Division.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

8. DISCUSSION OF CONCERNS OF SHERIFF SHOCKLEY: Sheriff Shockley discussed his degree of concern regarding the actions the Board took last night in approving two liquor licenses in the Horsetooth area at the gateway to the park, subsequent to the Board's recent disarming of park rangers and the elimination of deputy sheriff positions in County parks; he noted that when these actions are combined, it causes him great concern and there was no discussion with him about either of these actions whatsoever. Sheriff Shockley stated that the Board is making multiple decisions that affect each other; he noted that he was at the table when the decision was made to arm the park rangers, but he was not at the table when that decision was rescinded. Mr. Lancaster stated that this decision was a part of the Parks Director John MacFarlane's staffing report. Commissioner Clarke stated that the way it was presented to the Board was that they were going to make the park rangers more hospitable and give them a little more of a "Help the People Enjoy Their Experience in Nature" reputation. The Board stated they did not connect the two matters as one, based on the decision they thought they made. Sheriff Shockley stated that the County does not have deputies that can respond to situations in the Parks anymore, because of the decision the Board made two years ago; much discussion followed and the CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to schedule another meeting with John MacFarlane and the Sheriff to discuss this matter further and revisit the decision made the other day.

9. WORKSESSION:

-- Mr. Lancaster asked the Board if they thought the annual report highlight video they produced last year was useful and worthwhile and if they want to do another one this year; Ms. LaRue stated that the concern with the video last year was the shelf life and, if another video is made, it should be available earlier and last longer. It was noted that the alternative to a video would be a paper annual report; after discussion, the Board decided they would like another overview video showing what all the County does.

-- With regard to the Board's meeting on TDR's with the Boulder County Commissioners this Thursday night, Mr. Lancaster asked if there were other subjects the Board would like to discuss or if other staff members should attend; the Board indicated that Director of Planning Larry Timm should be invited to attend.

-- Mr. Lancaster asked the Board if they wished to have a Policy Worksession this Thursday since Commissioner Clarke will not be able to attend; the Board decided to cancel this week's Policy Worksession.

-- Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that the Northern Colorado Trauma Coordination Group called and stated that it was their understanding that Larimer County was going to sponsor their organization by doing all their accounting; he noted he talked to Finance Director Carol Block and with the installation of the new FMS, addressing the facilities' needs, etc., we cannot do this and so he told them "No".

-- Mr. Lancaster discussed the format for the budget TV call-in show for next Monday night; Ms. LaRue noted that this show will be a pre-curser to the budget hearings.

-- Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that there are three departments that have not submitted their budgets yet and the County has to submit their balanced budget tomorrow; he noted that he sent them an E-Mail stating that under State Statutes, if we don't submit a balanced budget on time, the County has to adopt a budget at 90% of what it was last year. Mr. Lancaster stated that he told the three departments that if their budgets aren't received by the end of today, we will submit the County balanced budget using 90% of their 1997 budget.

10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS:

-- Commissioner Olson showed her colleagues the award received from the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association to the Town of Estes Park in recognition of the joint planning legislative effort in bringing about the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.

-- Commissioner Olson stated that Director of Extension Laurel Kubin called, after all the letters and comments in the newspaper about 4-H, to let the Board know that the 4-H volunteers have tried really hard to communicate the real facts of Budget B.

-- Commissioner Olson informed her colleagues that the TDR Task Force is still on track with TDR's and they should be done by December 1, 1997.

-- Commissioner Clarke stated that the Communications Study Consultants are still looking at the 800 Megahertz solution for our communication problems; Chair Disney noted that the County is about to adopt some land use regulations with regard to communication towers and he talked to Dan Tasman, Planner II, and asked him to touch base with Mike Slavic about this and he also asked Mr. Slavic to take a look at the regulations to make sure we are not doing anything that prevents cooperative ventures between the County and the private sector working together on those towers. Commissioner Clarke stated that John Fishback, Fort Collins City Manager, thinks the $17 million estimate is too low and talked to him about the blue book.

At this time Assistant County Attorney joined the meeting for Legal Matters.

11. LEGAL MATTERS:

-- Ms. Haag reviewed the letter she sent to the County Commissioners in response to the letter from Robert Everitt, developer, citing his concerns regarding the amount of time that the development review process has taken to date for the Fossil Lake project.

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL ISSUE:

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session at 11:10 a.m. to discuss a personnel issue.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

The Executive Session ended at 11:30 a.m.; no action taken.

ABATEMENT HEARINGS

(#253 @ 2500)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:00 p.m. to consider two Petitions for Abatement. Chair Disney presided and Commissioners Clarke and Olson were present; also present were: Senior Appraisers Carla Woodward-Cowling, Shelley Kechter, and David Muse. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. PETITION FOR ABATEMENT FOR ALEXANDER SHAFERNICH

PARCEL #89334-34-002

Forrest McMichael, representing Petitioner Alexander Shafernich, stated that Mr. Shafernich purchased the subject property at I-25 and Wellington with the thought that he would put a billboard on it; he noted that the property is at the bottom of Cole Creek and 4 1/2 feet below the flood plain. Mr. McMichael stated that the County Assessor placed a value on the property based on the value of the 5-acre estates on the hillside; Dr. Shafernich protested the value, but was denied. Mr. McMichael is leasing the property and Dr. Shafernich asked him to try and get the value lowered; he noted he had a hearing with the Board of Equalization on July 26, 1996 and they voted to reduce the assessed value of the property by approximately 50%. Mr. McMichael stated that Dr. Shafernich paid the tax on this property prior to the hearing and at the hearing he was told he was to apply for an abatement for those taxes.

Ms. Woodward-Cowling reviewed the history of the property; she stated that Dr. Shafernich protested the property tax in 1995 and the value was not reduced. In 1996, Mr. McMichael protested the property tax and continued the appeal on to the Board of Equalization and the property tax was reduced from $13,900 to $7,500 and the taxes were paid for 1996, based on that lower value. She noted, however, that this Petition for Abatement is for 1995 and unfortunately, Dr. Shafernich protested that value for 1995, which was not reduced, and by not continuing on to BOE that year, he didn't pursue his administrative remedies at the time, so he exhausted those remedies for that year and the law only allows one administrative remedy per parcel per year. Ms. Woodward-Cowling cited House Bill 1018 which states: "Abatement petitions for overvaluation cannot be approved if the taxpayer protested the value the year the value was assigned". Therefore, the Assessor recommends denial of the Petition for Abatement or Refund of Taxes for 1995 because they would be allowing two administrative remedies instead of one.

Questions from the Board and discussion followed; they concurred that in the interest of fairness, they agree with the petitioner.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Clarke moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition for Abatement for Alexander Shafernich and allow a refund in the amount of $218.61 for 1995, as requested.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

2. PETITION FOR ABATEMENT FOR LAWRENCE BEBO

PARCEL #94240-09-702

The petitioner nor a representative were present for today's hearing. Ms. Kechter stated that, after consideration of the cost, market and income approaches, it is the Assessor's recommendation that the 1995 value of $311,831 be adjusted to $226,631 and that the value of $465,931 most accurately reflects the value of the subject property for the 1996 tax year, based on the new improvements added.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Olson moved that the Board of County Commissioners accept the Assessor's recommendation and that the 1995 value of $311,831 be adjusted to $226,631 and that the value of $465,931 most accurately reflects the value of the subject property in Larimer County for the 1996 tax year based on the new improvements added.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

The hearings adjourned at 2:40 p.m.

__________________________________________

JIM DISNEY, CHAIR LARIMER COUNTY

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MYRNA J. RODENBERGER

LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER

( S E A L )

ATTEST:

___________________________________________

Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk

__________________________________________

Gale M. Cookman, Deputy County Clerk

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.