Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 10/09/06  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2006

 

LAND USE HEARING

(#118 & #119)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal Planner.  Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Candace Phippen, Karlin Goggin, and Chad Gray, Building Inspection; Kimberly Clup, Executive Director for Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA); George Hass, County Attorney; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

Chair Gibson opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, and asked for public comment on the County Budget and the Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.   Chair Gibson then explained that the order of the items would be  rearranged so the Sedona Hill Court Address Appeal could be heard as the first item.

 

1. SEDONA HILLS COURT ADDRESS APPEAL:  The property owners of Sedona Hills Court request the Board to retain the road name and not change it as required by the addressing resolution.  The Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution established requirements upon which the Rural Address Improvement Project is based and being implemented.  These basic requirements have guided the decisions of staff with regards to making address changes in Larimer County.  There are four basic reasons for making address changes.  These are: correcting non-sequential numbering, parity discrepancies (odds on one side; evens on the other), naming unnamed roads, and eliminating duplicated road names.  The appeal for Sedona Hills Court is to retain a duplicate road name.  The road, Sedona Hills Court, currently takes access off Sedona Hills Drive, west of Loveland off County Road 18E.

Over the past several decades, duplicate names have been used throughout the county.  When creating the Resolution governing addressing, duplicate road names was targeted as being problematic for 9-1-1.  It was the request of the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) to eliminate and not allow duplicate road names.

 

The Resolution can only govern unincorporated areas of the county.  There are many duplicate road names within city limits; however, that is outside the scope and authority of the county government to remedy.  Section 5.B.2 governs the requirement to eliminate duplicate road names within zip codes.  The Appellant states the resolution is to “retain existing address numbers and/or road names were possible”.  However, since the Resolution has a specific Section to repeal duplicated road names, staff finds the road name to be noncompliant with the addressing Resolution and intent of this project.  The Section 5.B.2 states “road names shall not be duplicated within established USPS zip code boundaries.”  Eliminating this duplicate road name will be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Resolution and the Rural Addressing Improvement Project.

 

Major objectives of the Rural Addressing Improvement Project include correcting non-sequential numbering, correcting parity, naming unnamed roads, and eliminating duplicate road names.  As stated in the Resolution, appeals shall be upheld unless there is a preponderance of evidence that the decision is inconsistent with or does not promote the intent or purpose of this Resolution.  The decision of staff to recommend a road name change is consistent with the Resolution. 

 

Although a previous Findings and Resolution in 1995 granted the approval of these road names, the adoption of the Road Naming and Site Addressing Resolution supersedes the previous Findings and Resolution of this or any other addressing action.  The Rural Addressing Improvement Project would be ineffective if it applied only to new addressing.  Addressing requirements and needs have risen to a higher level, and the Resolution is the current most effective means for success.

 

Aside from the duplicate road name, Sedona Hills Court uses the same addressing grid system as Sedona Hills Drive, which is confusing.  The road, Sedona Hills Court, is currently in the Loveland area grid system for addressing numbers.  Basically there are two addressing methods, one is distance/integral addressing and the other is grid system addressing.  Grid system addressing is most common in more urbanized areas and subdivisions. 

 

With this road running south to north, it takes the same numbering system as used in areas along Sedona Hills Drive.  When dealing with duplicate road names, similar road ranging creates even more confusion.  Thus staff is requesting the road name be changed.  Since the roads in this area must use the Loveland grid system, it is impossible to avoid the numbering.  Thus, as the Post Master stated, “street name duplication can cause mail delivery confusion” and he added to use non-similar addressing numbers to avoid such confusion if the roads were named the same. 

 

Staff requests that the Board not abandon a very important component of the Resolution and to deny the request from the Sedona Hills Court resident(s) based upon the following:

                       

1.   LETA in response to this appeal requests the Resolution be upheld.  In this case, LETA finds the road to be noncompliant with one of the four guiding premises for changing addresses within the scope of this project.  Duplicate road names can create confusion for 9-1-1.

2.   LETA and the County have funded monies toward this project to ensure a systematic addressing system is achieved and without re-addressing this road the intent of the Resolution is not met.

3.   What would be the basis for allowing this duplicate road name to exist?  If this were to be allowed, what would be the basis for denying other requests for duplicate road names?  Allowing duplicate road names undermines the intent of both the Resolution and the Rural Addressing Improvement Project.  Allowing duplicate road names within the same Zip Code area decreases the intended effectiveness of efforts to improve addressing in the County for the long term benefit of all.

4.   Upholding this appeal will result in out of scope work and additional costs to this project, currently not funded, as the addressing is inconsistent with the Resolution.

5.   By allowing this appeal and exempting this area or creating any area as an exception to the Rural Addressing System, it would be negating the efforts of consistency already established within this project.  Many duplicate road names have been changed already and many more a targeted for change.  Creation of such “pockets” will only hinder this project.  It will most certainly increase similar appeal pursuits, and disrupt the guiding principals and intent for improvement as requested by funding providers. 

6.   The purposes of the Site Addressing and Road Naming System is to provide property owners, the general public, and Larimer County with an accurate and systematic means of identifying and locating property.  This includes the modification of address numbers on existing addresses and changing  road names when found to be inconsistent with the Resolution.  The county’s intent is to establish a system of unique and consistent road names and address points in order to provide/enable efficient public services and response times.

 

Ms. Goggin briefly explained the appeal as outlined above and recommended denial based upon the same.  Ms. Culp explained that LETA's best practices for 9-1-1 dispatch is to avoid duplicate road names whenever and wherever possible.  She then briefly explained that dispatching process, and noted that there can be serious delays in response time when a home cannot be located due to faulty and out-of-order addressing.

 

Ron Phillips, Sedona Hills Court resident, explained that there is no other Sedona Hills Court, and that their addresses are logically located off of Sedona Hills Drive.  He stated that he has spoken with emergency responders and the postal employees, and they have said there are no problems finding the Sedona Hills Court addresses.  Mr. Phillips stated that the City of Fort Collins has over 400 similar road names, and he questioned if the cities plan to change all the street names as well.

 

Rod Walker, Sedona Hills Court resident, stated that he is a photographer dealing in high-end advertising across the nation.  Mr. Walker presented samples of his printed inventory depicting his address; he noted that the material is very expensive, and because he does deal in high-end advertising, placing a sticker on the material to indicate a change of address would be unacceptable.   

 

Jacquline Harp, Sedona Hills Court resident, explained that she was in attendance at an earlier meeting during which the addressing resolution was being discussed.  She stated that her understanding was that the resolution was not set in stone and that appeals were made part of the process so that exceptions could be allowed.  Ms. Harp stated that Sedona Hills Court is clearly labeled and asked that the Board approve the appeal and leave the existing addresses as is.

 

There was no public comment on this item.

 

Ms. Goggin explained that she could not comment as to what the cities may or may not do, with regard to their addressing and street names, she can only govern the County's addressing system and try to uphold the intent of the resolution.  Ms. Goggin stated that the difference for emergency response teams can be between seconds and minutes if they are unable to locate an address.  Ms. Goggin stated that emergency services, LETA, the postal service, and staff were involved as a joint effort in the creation of the addressing resolution and goals of the project. 

 

Ms. Harp and Mr. Phillips again addressed the Board and explained that there is no problem finding their homes, and asked that the Board approve their appeal.

 

Under discussion of the item, Commissioner Wagner stated that the Board is always willing to consider appeals; however, she is hesitant to grant an appeal in a situation where similar road names can cause confusion and compromise response time.  Commissioner Wagner sympathized with the financial burden homeowners incur with addressing changes, but stated that she would not support the appeal.

 

Commissioner Rennels stated that she supports the addressing resolution; however, she noted concern that possibly the right questions and options are not being presented to homeowners prior to the hearing.  She stated that the Board is tasked to judge all appeals on their own merit; therefore, she does not believe that a decision, either way, on this issue will impact or set precedence for future appeals.  However, since the resolution was recently updated to exempt up to three addresses on a private cul-de-sac, less than one half mile, and seeing as how this roadway is not much more than one half mile, she was inclined to approve the appeal.

 

Chair Gibson expressed his concern with the numbering sequencing along Sedona Hills Drive and how it might cause confusion to emergency responders; therefore, he was not in favor of approving the appeal. 

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to retain the duplicate road name and change the name in accordance with the Addressing Resolution.

 

Motion carried 2-1; Commissioner Rennels dissenting.

 

2.  BENSLEY ZONING VIOLATION - #04-ZV0264:  The property owners, Cory and Nicole Bensley, and Jim Bensley, the owner of a double-wide modular home (DWMH), are in violation of the following sections of the Land Use Code (LUC) and the 2003 International Residential Code (IRC) adopted by Larimer County:

            Section 21.B (LUC):  “It is unlawful to  . . . erect, construct, reconstruct, remodel or improve any building or structure; or to alter or change the use of any real property or the improvements thereon without first obtaining all approvals required under this code and a building permit as required by the Building Code adopted by the county commissioners.”

            Section 105.1 (IRC):  “Any owner . . . who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure . . . or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.”

By virtue of:   Moving a DWMH onto the property without a required move permit, and storing the DWMH on the property without a valid building permit.

 

A complaint was received by Zoning Code Enforcement staff in August 2004 alleging, in part, that a modular home had been moved onto the property.  Staff confirmed the modular home had been moved onto the property without required permits and inspection approvals.  Despite several telephone calls, site visits and a pre-application meeting with one or more of the owners, the DWMH remains on the property without valid permits and inspection approvals.

 

The subject property is zoned O-Open.  There is an existing manufactured home on the property which was permitted under Building Permit 00-B1243.  A Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the home on October 10, 2000.  This residence is considered the principal building and use of the property.  See attached aerial maps of the subject property taken in 2000 and 2005.

Pursuant to LUC Section 4.1.5.B.5 for O-Open Zoning, no parcel can be used for more than one principal building.  Additional buildings are allowed on a parcel if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.  Pursuant to Section 4.3.10.D, accessory uses and buildings must be erected and used only for purposes that are clearly secondary and incidental to the principal use of the property and must be located on the same lot with the principal use.  A second dwelling is not secondary and incidental to the existing residential  use of the property.

Modular/mobile homes are designed and made for dwelling purposes.  The County does not allow modular/mobile homes to be used for storage or any other accessory use to the main residence.  Pursuant to LUC Section18.2.1.D, the use of manufactured homes as dwelling places outside manufactured home parks is allowed, not for use as storage.  A manufactured home is defined in the Land Use Code as “a factory-built, single-family structure that complies with the “National Manufactured Standards Act of 1974,” 42 U.S.C. 5401 et.seq., as amended.”

A DWMH may require a permit from the Engineering Department to move the DWMH over County roads.  The permit is dependent on the weight of the DWMH.  As well, a move permit is required from the Assessor’s Office to document the removal of the structure from one parcel to another, and to put the structure on the County tax rolls.  After a DWMH is moved onto property, it cannot be stored for more than 30 days without obtaining a valid building permit to set the modular on the property.  Jim Bensley states he has no intention of obtaining a building permit to use the structure for a dwelling and wishes to use the DWMH for storage purposes. 

Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize legal action if compliance is not met within 60 days from the date of this hearing as defined and outlined below. 

 

Mr. Kadera explained that he has met with Mr. Bensley, who has indicated that he will do the necessary repairs and then sell the DWMH and move it from the property. 

 

Jim Bensley stated that he initially was told that it was not necessary to permit the DWMH; he then expressed great distain for the whole permitting system in Larimer County and the costs associated with the process.  Mr. Bensley stated that he believes he has a buyer for the trailer, but he will need some time to accommodate fixing it and then moving it off of the property.

 

There was no public comment on this item. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners find the property owners, Cory and Nicole Bensley, and the owner of the double-wide modular home, Jim Bensley, in violation of the Land Use Code, and require compliance with Larimer County regulations within 8 months from the date of this hearing.  Legal action is authorized if this deadline is not met.  Compliance will be met by completing the following:

 

1.         Determine if a permit from the Larimer County Engineering Department to move the double-wide manufactured home (DWMH) over County roads is required and, if required, obtain the permit;

2.         Obtain a permit from the Larimer County Assessor’s Office to document the move of the DWMH from the subject property to another location;

3.         Remove the DWMH from the subject property to another location that will not cause further violations of County regulations.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  REVISIONS IN LIEU OF DEDICATION AMOUNTS FOR THE THOMPSON R2-J AND POUDRE R-1 SCHOOL DISTRICTS - #06-G0122 & #06-G0123:  This is a request for Adoption of revised fee in lieu of land dedication amounts for the Poudre and Thompson R2-J School Districts.

The Larimer County Land Use Code provides for the dedication of school sites as a part of any land division, Subdivision, Conservation Development or Planned Land Division. The provisions of the Code are taken directly from the State Statues which authorize the provision of school sites as a part of the subdivision statues.  Representatives of the districts approached the staff this summer and submitted proposals to update/increase the fee in lieu amount.  The current proposals are to increase the amount collected for the Poudre School District to $1800.00/unit for up to a 4 plex and $900.00/unit for 5 or more attached units, the amount for the Thompson R2-J is $1382/unit for up to 4 plex and $946.00/unit for 5 or above. 

 

In 1996 the Board of County Commissioners adopted the current Cash in Lieu of Dedication formula that is in use today.  There are a number of variables which affect the dollar amount of this fee.  The variables are the size of school site by type, the dwelling unit generation rate for students and value of the land per acre.  The fees and the process went through an extensive public process ultimately were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.  The same formula and process was adopted by the Cities of Loveland and Fort Collins.  These fees were updated in 2001, and currently are $688/unit Thompson R2-J School District and $763.01/unit Poudre School District.

 

The fees proposed by the two school districts have been reviewed and approved by their respective school boards and have also been adopted by the City of Loveland and is currently under consideration by the Towns of  Windsor and Berthoud.  The fee amounts have been through first reading with the City of Fort Collins and should be finalized at the time of the Board of County Commissioners hearing.  We anticipate that the city will adopt the fee for the Thompson R2-J district with out change and will adopt the fee for the Poudre district phasing it in over 2 years, $1200 for year one and increasing to the $1800 fee of year two.  The Town of Wellington has adopted a fee for the first time and is also phasing the collection in addressing already platted vs. to be platted lots. 

 

Both districts have proposed a more “automatic” update procedure.  The Thompson R2-j district proposal is to automatically update/adjust annually based upon the Dodge Index.  The Poudre district proposes to adjust every two years based upon the Larimer County Assessor’s “residential Lot Classification”.  To address some of the problems, noted below, in the comments from the Home Builder Association and to avoid another “skip” of 4 years we believe that a formalized update procedure should be implemented.  We are not convinced that an annual update is cost effective, given that it may take up to 90 days to implement the fee in our system.  It may be more reasonable to revise the amount every two years at a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners.  This would be set based upon a specific written request from the district(s) using variables to the equation the district(s) select and justify.  

 

 

Section 9.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code contains the provisions for the dedication of land or the collection of a fee in lieu of dedication at the time of building permit application.  Specifically, section 9.1.3.A. provides that the minimum dedication shall be that adopted by the school district.  The districts have done the calculation and had the fee amount reviewed and approved by the school board. 

 

The Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado has had an opportunity to comment on the proposed fees, comments attached.  Their principal concerns appear to be related to the significant increase in the fees.  The proposed fees of $1382.00/unit for Thompson R2-J and $1800.00/unit for Poudre represent significant one time increases in the fee, the first increase in the fee in over 4 years.  The HBA has further concerns related to the formula, school site size and how the districts deal with the existing inventory of lands.  From the perspective of the Planning staff these are issues related to a formula which has been in place for 10 years and are related to the decisions made by the individual school board.  We would encourage the HBA to participate directly with the districts to address their issues with the variables of the formulas related to school site sizes and land inventories. 

 

The Larimer County Master Plan supports the concept of the County working with the School Districts to coordinate cost effective facilities expansions (Guiding Principle PF-7) and funding strategies including the use of fees (Guiding Principle PF-10).

 

Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the revisions to the fee in lieu of dedication for the Thompson R2-J and Poudre School districts as found on the attached Exhibits A & B for each district.  To be implemented on January 1, 2007 this is approximately 90 days from the date of approval.

 

Mr. Helmick explained the background of the item noting that historically, Larimer County has never collected an administrative fee; however, a 2% administrative fee is being proposed as part of the revisions.  Commissioner Wagner asked if the fees would apply to the Town of Timnath.   Ed Holder, representative from Poudre School District, stated that the fees would only apply to the Town of Timnath if the County Regulations apply to the Town of Timnath as well.

 

Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Michelle Jacobs, representative from Home Builder's Association, addressed the Board.  Ms. Jacobs stated that their organization has experts in land development; she stated that their concerns evolve around the student generation rate, the site size for schools, and the assumptions used to determine fees.  Ms. Jacobs stated that the Town of Wellington adopted a lesser fee, as they felt the fees presented were excessive.  She urged the Commissioners to do the same, and adopt a lesser fee.

 

Kate Brown, representative from Thompson R2-J School District, stated that this request has been presented to the Loveland City Council and was adopted and implemented in July.  Ms. Brown stated that she was tasked to bring parity to all areas, and the methodology used has a rational nexus.  She stated that the numbers presented are based upon growth and development needs.  Mr. Holder explained the fees and the issue of site size, noting that the acreage is exactly what is needed to accommodate the number of buildings, parking, and athletic structures for the schools.

 

The Board agreed that it is a substantial increase and they were in favor of utilizing a phased approach to implementing the fees for the Poudre School District, but in order to avoid confusion and maintain consistency, they would not phase-in the fees for the Thompson R2-J School District. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the revisions to the fee in lieu of dedication amounts for the Thompson R2-J School District, as recommended by the staff, with the effective date of January 1, 2007. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the revisions to the fee in lieu of dedication amounts for the Poudre School District, as recommended by the staff, with the fees being $1200 per unit effective January 1, 2007, and increasing to $1800 per unit effective January 1, 2008.  The fees for 5 or more attached units will be set at $900 per unit effective January 1, 2007.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 5:25 p.m. 

 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#124 & 125)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster.   Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present.  Also present were: Neil Gluckman, Bob Keister, Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners Office; Mark Peterson, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk. 

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Brian Schumm, southwest area resident, stated that he has been in contact with the City of Fort Collins staff regarding the annexation of his property and the Whitman property.  He stated that the violations on the Whitman property are growing daily; yet the city staff has stated that they view this issue as more of a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute.  Mr. Schumm also stated his opinion that county staff need to conduct more research prior to bringing violations to the Commissioners, as they are far too lenient regarding enforcement of building permits.

 

Lynn Hilfers, Kate Callahan, and Ray and Dan Sibrant addressed the Board regarding the status of County Road 6, as there have been disputes as to whether or not portions of the road have been vacated and are now considered private.  Discussion ensued and Mr. Peterson stated that he will conduct some research on this matter.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 2, 2006

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of October 2, 2006.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 16, 2006The Commissioners reviewed and discussed the upcoming schedule with Ms. Hart.

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for October 10, 2006:

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:  As recommended by the Assessor, the following Petitions for abatement were approved: Allied Products (2004-2005); Uunet Technologies; University of Phoenix; Stewarts Dollar Store; MDS Realty I LLC; Bivins Trucking and Excavating Inc; First National Equipment Financing (2 parcels); Boulder Valley Credit Union; Seven Eleven Store 17900; First National Equipment Financing.

 

10102006A001           MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

10102006A002           INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE NORTHERN COLORADO BOMB SQUAD (“NCBS”) BY AND BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY, THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, AND THE CITY OF LOVELAND

10102006A003           AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY AND ANDALO ENTERPRISES LLC

10102006A004           DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR HALLETT HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, DAVID P. AND DIANE M. CADDELL, AND HALLETT HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

10102006D001           DEED OF DEDICATION BY LIVERMORE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

10102006D002           DEED OF DEDICATION BY ANITA W. BALAND OF SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

10102006R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2 IN THE SIMPSON EXEMPTION

10102006R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HALLETT HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION

10102006R003           RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF HALLETT HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION

10102006R004           LARIMER COUNTY ROAD NAMING AND SITE ADDRESSING SYSTEM RESOLUTION

10102006R005           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE OLD BERTHOUD HOMESTEAD MINOR LAND DIVISION

 

MISCELLANEOUS: WIA Enhanced Dislocated Worker Expenditure Authorization; Department of Human Services Payments for August 2006.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES: The following liquor license was approved: American Legion George Beach Post #4 -Special Event 6%- LaPorte.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.   OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT 38:  Mr. Gluckman noted that the Board had previously agreed to adopt a resolution opposing Amendment 38, pertaining to election petitioning requirements; he presented the resolution for the Board's approval.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution opposing Amendment 38 - The Petition Rights Amendment.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10102006R006           STATEMENT OF RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT 38 - THE PETITION RIGHTS AMENDMENT

 

6.  PROPOSED STATE AIR EMISSIONS REVISIONS:  Mr. Ryan presented a draft letter to the Air Quality Control Commission, which calls for revisions to Regulation 7 concerning the emissions of volatile organic compounds in the 8-hour ozone control area.  Mr. Ryan also presented a spreadsheet of the ozone levels that were recorded at 13 locations along the Front Range, which indicated that the region experienced 26 exceedences of the ozone level standard during the monitoring timeframe.  Mr. Ryan stated that regulatory controls make a significant difference and asked for the Board's support in signing the letter. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve signing a letter of support to the Air Quality Control Commission for the proposed revisions to Regulation 7, "Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds."

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.  CLERK AND RECORDER 2006 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST AND BRIEFING REGARDING NEWLY RECEIVED COURT ORDER FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING SECURITY PROCEDURES:  Mr. Hass requested that the Board go into Executive Session in order to discuss the details of the Court's order. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session, for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, as outlined in 24-6-402-(4)(b) C.R.S.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The Executive Session ended at 10:15 a.m., and the Administrative Matters meeting resumed.

 

Mr. Doyle explained that the Secretary of State has issued new security procedures for Colorado counties to follow in the 2006 general election and beyond.  Mr. Doyle noted that the new procedures are will have an immediate and significant fiscal impact to the County.  Ms. Kuhnen explained the breakdown of equipment and personnel needed to carry out the requirements, which include use of security cameras, additional security tags, additional funding for overtime and temporary staff, chase vehicles, etc.  Ms. Zmerzlikar explained that cost of each line item as follows:  $250,000 for cameras; $238,437 for salaries; $175,000 for additional supplies; and $7,500 for maintenance personnel travel.  Discussion ensued regarding how much the county could accomplish on such short notice in order to comply with the ruling.  Mr. Doyle stated that they simply would not be able to purchase and install the security cameras prior to the election.  Mr. Lancaster suggested the possibility of using other county employees to work in elections, using Road and Bridge equipment as chase vehicles, and possibly cut back on other county services during this election timeframe. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Supplemental Budget Request of $671,000, and direct staff to work with the Elections Department to comply with the elections requirements to the best of the County's ability, and authorize the expenditure of up to $100,000 from the Emergency Fund to meet said requirements.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

8.  INCREASE SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER/TRAFFIC ENGINEER FROM A HALF-TIME TO THREE-QUARTER TIME POSITION:   Mr. Peterson explained that the level of activity and support on traffic engineering and transportation planning involving Larimer County Engineering Department Staff has increased to the point that they also need to increase staff in order to support the demand.  He requested Board approval to increase a Senior Civil Engineer/Traffic Engineer from half-time (0.5 FTE) to three-quarter time (0.75 FTE).  Mr. Peterson noted that they have identified the funding necessary for increasing this position within the existing departmental budget.

 

 M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve increasing the Senior Civil Engineer/Traffic Engineer position from one-half (0.5 FTE) to three-quarter (0.75 FTE) time.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

9.  ALLOW ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUNDS TO BE APPLIED TO REPAY THE DRY CREEK LOAN BALANCE:   Mr. Peterson explained that in 2001, Larimer County was in the process of performing the baseline studies and public process necessary to pursue formation of a stormwater utility in a portion of the Dry Creek Basin.  The Board of County Commissioners authorized a loan of $50,000 from the Fossil Creek basin fund to the Dry Creek basin fund to cover some of the engineering support and public involvement undertaken at that time.  Mr. Peterson stated that the formation of the stormwater utility was suspended for lack of funding to complete the legal and accounting reviews, and there is a remaining balance of approximately $30,000 on the loan due to be repaid to the Fossil Creek Drainage Capital Fund, and another $3,000 in interest due on the loan.  He requested the ability to use some limited carryover funds from 2005, and unanticipated revenues from services performed in 2006, to be applied to retire the outstanding debt and interest on this loan.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve allowing $33,580 of Engineering Department funding for 2006 to be applied towards full repayment of the principle and interest due on a loan that was made from the Fossil Creek Basin drainage fund to the Dry Creek Basin fund.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10.  SUPPES FEE WAIVER REQUEST:  Mr. Stewart explained that Robert and Ida Suppes, owners of the Sunny Jims Candy Store in Loveland, recently began offering U-haul truck rental services at their candy store business.  Mr. Stewart noted that outdoor storage of equipment is not allowed in the T-Tourist zoning district and that special exception approval is required for this type of use.  He noted that the owners are requesting a waiver, or a reduction, of the special exception fees.  Chair Gibson asked what the $1500 fee is used for.  Mr. Steward stated that it is used for costs associated with the public hearing and staff time to review the application.  Chair Gibson stated that he could support a reduction in fees.  Commissioner Rennels stated that there needs to be some criteria in place for reducing or waiving rates.  Commissioner Wagner agreed with Commissioner Rennels, and further noted that this type of use is not allowed in the zoning district; however, the Board is willing to consider it. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the waiver of $1500 for the special exception fees for Sunny Jims Candy Store.

Motion carried 2-1; Chair Gibson dissenting.

 

11.  WORKSESSION:   Mr. Lancaster informed the Board that the first business day for Phase-I of the Southwest Annexation for the City of Fort Collins will occur on November 2, 2006.

 

12.  COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board noted their attendance at events during the past week. 

 

13.  LEGAL MATTERS:  There were no legal matters to discuss.

 

The meeting recessed at 11:30 a.m.

 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2006

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION

(No audio available)

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 10:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster.   Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were present. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Rennels  moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters, as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(f) C.R.S.

Motion carried 3-0.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

                        GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

_______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk   

 

 

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.