MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Monday, JUNE 23, 2008
LAND USE HEARING
(#218 & 219)
The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present. Also present were: Sean Wheeler, Toby Stauffer, and Wendy Dionigi, Planning Department; Christie Coleman, and Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Karlin Goggin, Building Department; Jeannine Haag, and Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorneys; 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 Land Use Code. No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.
Chair Gibson then explained that the following item was on consent and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
1. CRYSTAL LAKES 15TH LOTS 64 AND 65 LOT CONSOLIDATION/EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #08-S2801: This is a request to combine two adjacent Lots, Lots 64 and 65, into one lot in the Crystal Lakes 15th Filing and vacate two 10’ utility easements along the common lot line of the two properties.
There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors. Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:
· The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment
· The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Services
· The Larimer County Assessor’s Office
· The Larimer County Addressing Section
· The Larimer County Code Compliance Section
The Assessor’s letter provides the new legal description of the resultant lot. Staff referred the application to other internal and external reviewing agencies and the affected utility companies, no other comments were received.
The proposed Lot Consolidation of Crystal Lakes 15th Filing Lots 64 and 65 will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency. The Lot Consolidation will not result in any additional lots. The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
The Development Services Team recommends approval of Lot Consolidation for Crystal Lakes 15th Filing Lots 64 and 65 and the vacation of two 10’ utility easements along the common lot line of the two properties, File #08-S2801 subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by December 23, 2008, or this approval shall be null and void.
2. The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions or other conditions that apply to the original lots.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as outlined above.
Motion carried 3-0.
2. SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE WARBERG FARM CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS: This is a request for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners on Position Statements related to the Warberg Farm CD Final Plat and Gard Lateral Ditch Company concerns about improvements.
Mr. Wheeler reviewed the Position Statements provided by the Applicant/Owner of the Warberg Farm Conservation Development and the representative for the Gard Lateral Ditch Company. Because of the accelerated nature of this request for a public hearing, written comments from Staff are not provided. Mr. Wheeler explained that the Gard Lateral Ditch Company still has issues with the drainage from the Warberg Farm application, and they have conducted more studies and have incurred more fees that they want the applicant to reimburse.
Ms. Coleman presented photos and a lengthy analysis of the proposed drainage. She discussed the detention ponds, the pipe sizing and placement, the historical flow of the water, and she explained that even during the worst scenario, water would not reach the lowest portion of the home on lot 6 (the lowest lot in the proposed development). Ms. Coleman stated she believes that, from an engineering standpoint, the drainage goals have been met.
The applicant, Sonia Warberg Mast, addressed the Board. She presented reports and photos to the court reporter to mark as exhibits. Ms. Warberg Mast explained that she has worked very hard to ensure that the Gard Lateral is fully protected. She explained how they would control the water and noted that there is well established case law that allows the owner of water upstream, to make alterations to the path, as long as it does not cause harm to the water flow downstream. Ms. Warberg Mast stated that she believes she has fully complied with the Land Use Code and Colorado law.
Alden V. Hill, attorney for Ms. Warberg Mast, addressed the Board and gave his background regarding his vast experience with ditches and detention ponds. Mr. Hill stated that he has visited the site to conduct an analysis of the drainage, and he believes it is adequate and that there should be no further fees taxed to the applicant.
Andy Jones, attorney for the Gard Lateral Ditch Company, stated that they have conducted further studies that reveal a significant error in the applicant’s engineering. He asked Ms. Coleman if she had conducted an independent study of the historical water flow. Ms. Coleman stated that she had not. Mr. Jones stated that the development cannot deliver more water to the ditch than has historically existed, and that this proposal will do just that. Mr. Jones requested that the applicant install stormwater detention facilities, and reimburse the Gard Lateral Ditch Company $13,649 for the reasonable costs they have incurred to investigate this issue, as per the Larimer County Land Use Code.
Barbara Johnston, Secretary/Treasurer of Gard Lateral Ditch Company, stated that they were never contacted by the applicant and were not given the opportunity to address these issues. Consequently, they have had to spend a lot of money to conduct their independent studies.
Jeff Olhausen, engineer for the Gard Lateral Ditch Company, presented his calculations on the historical flow, and on amount of drainage that would be incurred in a flood if the proposal was approved. Discussion ensued regarding the water flows to the east and south, and the release rates of the water during a storm.
Ms. Warberg Mast then presented Ms. Coleman’s statement as another exhibit for the court reporter, as well as photos from a recent 2-day storm that resulted in 1 ½ inches of rain that did not cause any issues with the drainage. Ms. Warberg Mast stated that the water has not flowed to the east since 1979, as that is when work was conducted to raise the road.
Dennis Messner, engineer for the applicant, stated that they have a difference of opinion. He stated they have provided the facilities necessary and have routed the water through detention ponds and will release it at the proper rate. When questioned whether or not he had conducted an analysis of the historical flow, Mr. Messner stated that he had not done so.
Mr. Olhausen disagreed that the water has not flowed to the east since 1979. He stated that he used the elevations of the roads in the development to reach his conclusions.
Mr. Hill again stated that the development is sound and meets the requirements of the Land Use Code. He read excerpts from Ms. Coleman’s report and then requested that the letter of credit related to this project be released so that his client can proceed with the development.
Mr. Jones stated that Mr. Messner admitted he had not conducted the historical flow of the water, and that water has flowed to the east since 1979. Mr. Jones also noted that the applicant has admitted that they now channel the water to the Gard Lateral Ditch. He stated that they cannot use Ms. Coleman’s report since she was just working off of Mr. Messner’s figures. Mr. Jones requested that the Board of County Commissioners require the applicant to comply with all aspects of the Land Use Code.
There was no public comment on this item.
Commissioner Eubanks questioned staff on how it was that communication did not occur between the applicant and the ditch company. Mr. Wheeler stated that the communication was sporadic at first, and he was lead to believe that the communication had taken place.
Commissioner Rennels suggested that this item be tabled to give the Engineering Department time to review and analyze the data that has been presented, and to determine the issue of the water flow to the east.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Supplemental Public Hearing for the Warberg Farm Development, to July 21, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.
Motion carried 3-0.
3. BRINKS COUNTY ROAD 21F ROAD NAME APPEAL, FILE #08-CAC0089: This is a request by Ms. Rose Brinks to retain the existing address of 2405 N Overland Trail. The properties involved in this appeal access from a county maintained county road – County Road 21F.
As part of the Road Naming and Site Addressing System, the county code provides in Section 10-175.(a)(4)a: the County Addressing Coordinator shall be responsible for assigning and modifying address numbers or road names. The applicant seeks to retain addresses from N Overland Trail.; however, the properties involved in this appeal take direct access from County Road 21F. County Road 21F is a publicly dedicated road and is county maintained. The properties do not have direct access from N Overland Trail and thus in accordance with the county code, the addresses should change to reflect the proper road name designation.
The applicant seeks to retain N Overland Trail addresses on the basis of historical significance. Section 10-175(b)(1)e also has a provision allowing the County to retain historically significant road names when considering the road naming hierarchy. This pertains to county road designations that may have common alias road names that are found to be historically significant. Examples are Bingham Hill Rd (W County Road 50E) and N Overland Trail (N County Road 21C). The road name of N Overland Trail is used by the county road designation directly to the east and there should not be two Overland Trails in Larimer County.
Currently, the property owned by Ms. Brinks has an address of 2405 N Overland Trail. Ms. Brinks seeks to retain this address; however, the direct access to her property is from the county maintained road, County Road 21F. County Road 21F was created as part of the Overland bridge reconstruction project. Engineering plans from this project are dated 1975 and completion was in 1976 per discussion with Dale Miller, Director of Road & Bridge for Larimer County. County Road 21F is publicly dedicated right of way and county maintained. Per the county code Section 10-175.(a)(4)a, there is a need and requirement of the code to correct the property addresses along this road to reflect the correct county road number designation.
Ms. Brinks seeks to appeal on the basis of historical significance. Section 10-175 (b)(1)q provides the following:
The names of state and federal highways are assigned based on their state or federal highway number. If any given section of a road has multiple designations, e.g.: a state and a federal highway number or two federal highway numbers, the following hierarchy shall be used within the Larimer County addressing/road naming system:
1. Interstate (lowest interstate number takes precedence if more than one).
2. Federal highway number (lowest federal highway number takes precedence if more than one).
3. Forest service roads.
4. State highway number (lowest state highway number takes precedence if more than one)
5. County highway number.
6. The hierarchy in road naming shall supersede and take precedence over historically significant and/or alias road names.
Section 10-175 (b)(1)e provides for the following:
Road names may be based upon historical significance provided the road naming hierarchy requirements in subsection q. above are met. In order for a road name to be based on historical significance, it must represent clear significance to Larimer County and its history. Requests to add historically significant road names must be approved by the board of county commissioners (BOCC) following a public hearing.
Ms. Brinks seeks that her address, along with the Grant Family Trust at 2417 N Overland Trail be allowed to retain their existing addresses on the basis of the original N Overland Trail being on this route. I attempted contact with the Grant Family Trust regarding opinion on this appeal and no response was received. Per an aerial photograph circa 1967, the old N Overland Trail and bridge traversed a path that ran past the original Herring and then Burns property which is now owned by the Brinks. Bridge reconstruction was completed in 1976.
In a book provided by Ms. Brinks, “A Certain 160 Acres, LaPorte, CO. From Provost to Brinks” maps depict the road alignment and bridge reconstruction. As noted in this book and through warranty deed research, it is important to note dates and that the Overland bridge reconstruction and re-routing of the road was completed prior to the Brinks obtaining ownership of this property. During construction of the new bridge and re-routing of the road, Mabel Burns was the property owner of 2405 N Overland Trail. According to warranty deeds, James Brinks acquired the property in October 1977. The Overland Trail did not pass the Brinks’ property in 1977.
Although the original path of Overland Trail traversed past this 160 acres, the current route, the route to which has been established since 1976, is no longer on this road. In fact, the county designated the road, to which the Brinks and Grants access from, as a publicly dedicated right of way and is officially named County Road 21F. This road does not hold an alias road name and does not meet the intent of historical significance for road naming conventions. After discussions with county staff and Ms. Brinks the following proposals were presented for them to consider prior to coming to the Board for action. The options were as follows:
a) Create a new driveway direct from N Overland Trail running on the south side of the property. This would allow retention of the road name however the number would need to change to obtain sequential numbering.
b) Request to vacate maintenance of the county road. If the maintenance is eliminated the county road designation is eliminated. This would still be a public right of way, but not county maintained. Maintenance would be the responsibility of the two owners.
c) Seek a right of way vacation. This eliminates the road as a publicly dedicate right of way and relinquishes the county road designation. Property owners could retain existing addresses, however, maintaining of the road becomes the owner’s responsibility.
From Ms. Brinks via email, these options were not pursued and they do not desire to relinquish county maintenance. The sole request is to retain N Overland Trail addresses.
Staff findings are as follows:
· LETA and the County have funded monies toward the rural addressing project to ensure a systematic addressing system is achieved. Naming conventions must be in compliance with the enabling Resolution.
· The Resolution states that the criteria for appeals is that the decisions of the County Addressing Coordinator shall be upheld by the Board of County Commissioners unless a preponderance of evidence that the decision herein is inconsistent with or does not promote the intent and purpose of the Resolution. Since the existing address scheme does not adhere to the county road designation to which they access from, upholding this appeal would go against the Resolution.
· A decision to uphold this appeal request would result in out of scope expenses for our consulting requiring additional funds being allocated to the project to make the changes.
· The Resolution provides in Section 10-175 (a)(4)a to modify existing address numbers and road names where applicable. Also, Section 10-176 (b) states: Larimer County shall balance the need to modify existing address numbers and/or road names for compliance with this article and postal standards with the desire to retain existing address numbers and/or road names where possible. Larimer County may initiate one or more of the following: the naming of an unnamed road, the modification of an existing road name, the assignment of an address number to an unaddressed structure or unit, or the modification of an existing address number.
· Staff finds the road is a publicly dedicated right of way; is county maintained; and of record as County Road 21F.
· The purposes of the Site Addressing and Road Naming Resolution 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 as part of administering the resolution and addressing standards when found to be inconsistent. The county is working to establish a system of unique and consistent road names and address points while providing efficient public services and response.
· By allowing this appeal and exempting this area or creating any area as an exception to the addressing system would be negating efforts to create a logical, systematic, and consistent addressing scheme in Larimer County. Approval of such a request would create an exception to the intent of the enabling guidelines and promote further addressing anomalies which then demonstrates inconsistency and confusion.
· The appellant has viable options to pursue regarding retention of an Overland Trail address by relocating the driveway or obtaining right of way vacation. However, the applicant desires the County to change its addressing rules instead.
There are three viable options available:
1) Change the property location addresses to the County Road 21F designation. The two addresses on this would retain the numbers and respectively be known as 2405 County Road 21F and 2417 County Road 21F, LaPorte, Colorado 80535. This keeps the road county maintained and consistent with the address system for Larimer County.
2) Vacate the Right of Way to County Road 21F. This would be a process that would have to be completed with County Engineering. Dale Miller has agreed that Road & Bridge will cover the administrative fee associated with the right of way vacation, but not any survey or legal costs associated with this vacation. Vacating the right of way would allow for both properties to retain their N Overland Trail addresses as this road segment would no longer be a county road and under the address guidelines would not require a road name (length & number of people served). This option would place maintenance responsibility on both property owners.
3) The two property owners could with Board approval, create a new road name for County Road 21F that becomes the official road name for addressing. Much like Bingham Hill Rd and N Overland Trail, a new, non-duplicated, unique road name could be created and recognized in the addressing system. This allows for retention of county maintenance.
Ms. Goggin explained that she has since spoken with the applicant, the representative from the Grant Family Trust, and representative from the Division of Wildlife, and all agree to forgo county maintenance and will maintain the road themselves if the Board grants the vacation of the Right-of-Way to County Road 21F.
Ms. Goggin stated that Ms. Brinks is aware of the associated fees that may be incurred as a result of this action. Ms. Goggin stated that staff has revised their position and will recommend approval of the appeal conditional to the easement being vacated.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request to retain the two existing N Overland Trail addresses of 2405 N Overland Trail, and 2417 N Overland Trail.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. SCHLIHS BUILDING AND ZONING VIOLATIONS: A hearing was held before the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners on Monday, December 3, 2007. At the end of the hearing, the Board tabled this matter to Monday, April 7, 2008, at 3:00 p.m. At the April 7, 2008 hearing the Board tabled this item to Monday, May 28, 2008, at 3:00 p.m., and directed staff to prepare and discuss alternatives with the applicant so that they (owners) could make a decision as to what direction they would like to proceed. Staff refers to the staff report prepared for the December 3, 2007 and April 7, 2008 hearings.
As of this writing the owners and staff have arranged to meet and discuss the options available to remedy the current violation, which options are outlined below.
Option 1 would maintain and utilize the industrial zoning on the property for uses allowed by said zone district. This option would involve the following:
A. The applicant would need to remove all uses not allowed by the I (Industrial) zone district by August 1, 2008, which uses are three RV (trailers) being used as dwelling units. If any of the industrial uses proposed for the site require approval of a Special Review application, the applicant by virtue of the Larimer County/City of Loveland Intergovernmental Agreement will be required to seek annexation to City.
B. The applicant would need to bring the existing illegal industrial uses (none of the existing industrial activities on the site including the outdoor storage of construction equipment have been approved for this site) on the property into compliance by submitting a Site Plan Review application for review and approval by the Larimer County Planning Department. The fees for a site plan application vary from $1,300 to $5,000 depending upon the square footage of buildings on the property. The review time for a site plan application will vary depending on the efficiency and accuracy of the applicants engineers to provide plans that meet Larimer County regulations, which historically has been 3-6 months. In order to approve a Site Plan application in Larimer County the applicant will at a minimum need to address the following code requirements:
1. Water and sewer service will be required for any non-residential buildings being used for business activity and employees. Obtaining these services will require an action on behalf of the City of Loveland to for “out of city” service (unless annexed into City limits). Such services will vary in cost. Based upon conversations with the City Water and Power Department this will likely be in the range of $80,000 to $100,000. However, if the property were in the City the cost for such services would be $15,000 to $30,000 less than noted above.
2. Roads providing access to the property will need to be evaluated to determine if any improvements will be necessary to serve industrial uses on the property. Costs for road improvements will vary widely based upon existing infrastructure and proposed impacts. What should be anticipated by the applicant is the preparation of a traffic analysis, preparation of construction plans for necessary improvements, and the installation of any required improvements.
3. Drainage plans and improvements for the developed portions of the property will be required. The extent of these plans and improvements will vary based upon the intensity and use of the property, which costs are the applicant’s responsibility.
4. Fire protection will be required for the industrial use of the property and may require the installation of fire hydrants or other fire protection systems, all of which will be based upon the type and intensity of uses proposed.
5. All on-lot parking areas for employees and customers, as well as the access to the parking areas from adjacent streets will need to be planned and installed by the applicant. These facilities will need to be paved and provide adequate vehicular circulation, including circulation for fire protection vehicles. The applicant should anticipate plan preparation costs and installation costs for these on-site improvements, which costs will vary depending on the level of improvements necessary for the use.
6. Typical landscaping for the property will be required. The level of landscape requirements will depend on the amount of parking, street frontage and degree of screening necessary for the industrial uses, which includes outdoor storage. The applicant will be responsible for the preparation of plans consistent with the landscape regulations for the County, as well as the installation and maintenance of the landscaping.
7. Any site lighting for the property will need to be documented and evaluated during the site plan process, which may require the submittal of a photometric plan prepared by an electrical engineer. Any costs for plan preparation and installation will be the responsibility of the applicant.
8. The above items represent the majority of possible plans and improvements to be expected with industrial development. However, some additional plans and improvements may arise as the types and intensity of uses are identified.
C. After receiving approval of the Site Plan application the applicant will need to submit a building permit application for any building improvements associated with the industrial use of the property including any previous building improvements accomplished without obtaining building permits. The building permit costs will vary depending upon the level of building improvements. Additionally, the applicant will be responsible for TCEF (Transportation Capital Expansion Fees) and drainage fees, which are collected upon issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall be aware that these fees vary widely depending upon the level of impacts associated with the use of the site and may be substantial.
D. Prior to any site improvements the applicant may be required to obtain a development construction permit through the Engineering Department.
Option 2 would propose to maintain and utilize the property as a RV Park/Campground. This option would involve the following:
A. This option would involve removing all industrial uses from the property by August 1, 2008.
B. In accordance with the Larimer County/City of Loveland Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and Section 4.2.1 (Overlay Zone Districts) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, the applicant must first seek annexation of the property to the City of Loveland, and develop consistent with the City regulations.
C. In the event that the City of Loveland denies the annexation petition, the applicant would need to provide documentation from the City stating why they do not want to annex. Once received, this information would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners to determine if the County accepts the City’s reasons for not annexing. If the County Commissioners accepts the reasoning of the City for not annexing the property then the County Commissioners can direct staff to accept for consideration the application(s) necessary to utilize the property for a RV park/campground, which applications would be as follows:
D. A rezoning application would need to be submitted by the applicant to rezone the property to a zoning district that would allow use of the property as a RV park/campground. Currently the T-Tourist, A-Accommodation and O-Open districts allow RV parks/campgrounds as a use by Special Review. One of the major things the County would consider in a rezoning and special review request would be what the City's future land use plan says for the subject site. This is important since, per the IGA, it is anticipated and expected that at least eventually the site would be annexed to the City. The City's future land use plan for this site calls for industrial uses at this site. The County is not obligated to follow the City's future land use plan when considering rezoning, but their opinion would be given substantial consideration. A rezoning application inside of a Growth Management Area (GMA) would cost $4000-$5000. A rezoning application also will require the submittal of supporting documentation and plans at the cost of the applicant.
E. Either simultaneous to or after approval of a Rezoning application the applicant must also submit a Special Review application. The Special Review application will take into consideration the appropriateness of the RV Park/Campground use based upon the surrounding uses and the land use objectives of the City of Loveland. This application will require more extensive submittal requirements to determine the level of improvements necessary for the use. These submittal requirements will need to address the following:
E. After receiving approval of the Special Review application the applicant will need to submit an building permit application for any building improvements associated with the such a facility including any previous building improvements on the property accomplished without obtaining building permits. The building permit costs will vary depending upon the level of building improvements. Additionally, the applicant will be responsible for TCEF (Transportation Capital Expansion Fees) and drainage fees, which fees are collected upon issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall be aware that these fees vary widely depending upon the level of impacts associated with the use of the site and may be substantial.
F. Prior to any site improvements that applicant may be required to obtain a development construction permit through the Engineering Department.
Option 3 would attempt to maintain and utilize the property for a RV park as well as for industrial uses. This option would involve the following:
A. In accordance with the Larimer County/City of Loveland Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and Section 4.2.1 (Overlay Zone Districts) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, the applicant must first seek annexation of the property to the City of Loveland, and develop consistent with the City regulations.
B. In the event that the City of Loveland denies the annexation petition, the applicant would need to provide documentation to the County stating why the City does not want to annex. Once received this information would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners to determine if the County accepts the City’s reasons for not annexing. If the County Commissioners accepts the reasoning of the City for not annexing the property then the County Commissioners can direct staff to accept for consideration the applications necessary to utilize the property for RV park or campground purposes proposed by the applicant, which would involve the following:
C. A Rezoning and Planned Land Division application would need to be submitted by the applicant to rezone a portion of the property to a zoning district that would allow use of the property as a RV park or campground, and leave the remaining portion zoned I (Industrial). Currently the T-Tourist, A-Accommodation and O-Open districts allow RV parks and campgrounds as a use by Special Review. One of the major things the County would consider in a rezoning, planned land division and special review request would be what the City's future land use plan says for the subject site. This is important since, per the IGA, it is anticipated and expected that at least eventually the site would be annexed to the City. The City's future land use plan for this site calls for industrial uses at this site. The County is not obligated to follow the City's future land use plan when considering rezoning, but that would remain a major consideration. A rezoning and planned land division application inside of a Growth Management Area (GMA) would cost $7,000-$10,000. A rezoning and planned land division application also will require the submittal of supporting documentation and plans at the cost of the applicant. The submittal would need to address the following:
D. Either simultaneous too or after approval of a rezoning and planned land division application the applicant must also submit a Special Review application. The Special Review application will take into consideration the appropriateness of the RV Park or Campground use based upon the surrounding uses and the land use objectives of the City of Loveland. This application may require additional information to the submittal requirements list in the previous step in order to determine the level of improvements necessary for the specific use. These submittal requirements will need to address the following:
E. Apply for and obtain approval of a Site Plan application through the Larimer County Planning Department, for the existing industrial uses on the site, which include outdoor storage and industrial users occupying an existing building on site. The fees for a site plan application vary from $1,300 to $5,000 depending upon the amount of buildings and use on the property. The review time for a site plan application will vary depending on the efficiency and accuracy of the applicants engineers to provide plans that meet Larimer County regulations, which historically has been 4-8 months. In order to approval a Site Plan application in Larimer County the applicant will need to address code requirements such as:
F. After receiving approval of the Special Review an/or Site Plan application the applicant will need to submit an building permit application for any building improvements associated with the uses of the property including any previous building improvements accomplished without obtaining building permits. The building permit costs will vary depending upon the level of building improvements. Additionally, the applicant will be responsible for TCEF (Transportation Capital Expansion Fees) and drainage fees, which fees are collected upon issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall be aware that these fees vary widely depending upon the level of impacts associated with the use of the site and may be substantial.
G. Prior to any site improvements that applicant may be required to obtain a development construction permit through the Engineering Department.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners find that violations of the Larimer County Land Use Code, Building Code and Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations exist, and authorize legal action if junk, debris, unlicensed vehicles, RVs and all un-permitted uses are not removed from the property before August 1, 2008, with the following additional conditions for uses permitted in the I (Industrial) zone district:
1. Require that the owner submit a Site Plan application by September 1, 2008, for review and approval for the existing un-approved industrial uses on the property, with the application being approved not later than June 1, 2009. Furthermore, require that all necessary improvements identified by the Site Plan review and be constructed/installed by November 1, 2009.
2. Require that the applicant obtain all necessary building permits for the existing building(s) on the property, and any additional buildings allowed by the Site Plan review by August 1, 2009.
Mr. Lafferty explained the history of this violation and presented the options as outlined above. The property owner, Charlotte Schlihs, addressed the Board and presented a receipt to Mr. Ryan for the pumping of their septic tank. Mrs. Schlihs explained that she is working with the City of Loveland to see if they can get Out-of-City water and sewer to their property, without having to annex to the City.
Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and Ron Harmon addressed the Board. Mr. Harmon stated that he has been in touch with the Housing Authority and the cheapest they could get housing for was $475 a month, and there is a year and a half waiting period. He explained that he and his wife are both disabled and on Medicare and only receive $1100 a month to live on.
Walter Ehrlich then addressed the Board and stated that this is their home and that they are not hurting anybody. He asked for compassion regarding their situation.
Commissioner Eubanks asked for a summary of the Health and Human Services (HHS) contacts, and Ms. Dionigi stated that her contact at HHS says that they have not been contacted by the Harmon’s or Ehrlich’s to date.
Much discussion ensued regarding the options available, but the question of whether city water and sewer would be available was a deciding factor in all of the options. The Board decided that it was best to find that a violation exists and then give the property owner ample time to work out the water and sewer issues and to then choose an option and present an application to the County to cure the violation.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners find that violations of the Larimer County Land Use Code, Building Code and Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations exist and authorize legal action if junk, debris, unlicensed vehicles, RVs and all un-permitted uses are not removed from the property before January 1, 2009, or the violations are not otherwise cured by other county options.
Motion carried 3-0.
The hearing recessed at 6:00 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
(#223 & 224)
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Gibson presided, and Commissioners Eubanks and Rennels were present. Also present were: Frank Lancaster, Commissioners’ Office; Traci Downs, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, and Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorneys; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. OBERMEYER HYDRO AMENDED SPECIAL EXCEPTION, FILE #06-Z1589: This is a request for an amendment to the Obermeyer Hydro, Inc. Special Exception to expand the employee base of the use from 10 to 160 and to expand the office, research and development, and manufacturing building foot print from 15,850 sq. ft. to 75, 750 sq. ft.
At the April 28, 2008, Board of County Commissioners meeting the applicant requested that the Board table this item to the June 2, 2008 meeting. The purpose for the applicant’s request was to allow an opportunity for the Development Services Team to formulate conditions if the Board of County Commissioners opts to approve the application, as well as to refine some details associated with the applicant’s proposal. As of this writing the Development Review Team has not met to formalize possible conditions for consideration of the Board chooses to approve the request. The Development Services Team will make the conditions available to the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant and other interested parties before the hearing date.
On March 19, 2008, the Development Services Team presented the Obermeyer Hydro Inc. Amended Special Exception to the Planning Commission. At this hearing the Planning Commission took testimony from the applicant and public, for which no one from the public objected to the application.
After taking testimony from all interested participants the Planning Commission deliberated the requested application. This discussion raised issues as to the appropriateness of the use at the location, the availability of adequate public facilities for the use and intent behind the Master Plan and it land use objectives. The Planning Commission then made a recommendation to deny the application, which recommendation failed with split vote of 3-3, which sends the application forward to the Board of County Commissioners without a recommendation.
The Development Services Team recommends denial of the Obermeyer Hydro, Inc. Amended Special Exception File #06-Z1589.
Mr. Lafferty gave a slide show presentation and discussed the history of approvals related to the Obermeyer Hydro operation in Wellington. He explained that since their application in 1994, the operation has increased 3000 square feet of building space, and 26,000 square foot of outdoor storage, without approval. Mr. Lafferty reviewed the major concerns and recommended denial of the application.
The applicant, Henry Obermeyer, explained his business in detail and stated that it is beneficial in Larimer County. He noted that he purposely looked for a rural setting as his processes are not conducive to an industrial park setting (such as the outdoor testing that must be conducted). Mr. Obermeyer stated that he has screened his operations and has not had any complaints regarding his business. He stated that his growth has exceeded his previous special exceptions, and he has been trying to work with the Planning Department to rectify this.
Lucia Liley, attorney for the applicant, reviewed the application criteria and outlined specifically how each criterion is met and how the overall application complies with the Land Use Code. She reviewed the economic benefits and highlighted the partnership with Colorado State University, as contributions to the community and Larimer County as a whole.
Chair Gibson opened up the hearing for public comment and the following individuals spoke in favor of the proposal: Lou Kinzley, Chuck Mayhue, Ron Young, Kelly Cromer, Del Black, Mike Snider, Miquel Jarvis, Bob Moore, Lou Grant, Rick Johnson, and Sue Foster. Their reasons for supporting the proposal included: Expansion of the Obermeyer will not decrease property values; there have been no complaints regarding this operation, and many neighbors did not even know it existed; the business is critical and provides jobs to their community; the small and medium businesses support the infrastructure of the community; Mr. Obermeyer is a good and responsible neighbor; and finally, Ms. Foster stated that she was in favor of the proposal, as long as there was careful oversight of the operations so that it does not intrude on the rural feel of their community.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the proposal: Cathy Parynik, Shannon Skelton, and James Boyd. Ms. Parynik spoke on behalf of the neighbors that oppose the expansion. (At least nine others in the room raised their hands to note that she was speaking on their behalf.) Ms. Parynik stated their concerns with an industrial operation being expanded in their rural neighborhood as follows: Their property values will decrease; Mr. Obermeyer has allowed the operation to grown five times bigger than allowed without approval; it is a dangerous precedent to set for rural properties; it will change the character of the neighborhood; and economic incentive should not be the driving force for development. Ms. Skelton and Mr. Body both noted concern for the lack of water in their area and the possibility of the Obermeyer operation depleting even more of their water.
Chair Gibson closed public comment.
Ms. Liley noted that they have considered other properties; however, the unique nature of the Obermeyer Hyrdo operations requires large acreage, with the ability to conduct outdoor testing.
Mr. Obermeyer displayed photos of the property, which showed how the operations plant was screened from the neighborhood.
Dan Brown, attorney specializing in water law, explained the options for obtaining the water for operations. He noted that the preferred method would be to obtain a water tap from the Northern Colorado Water Association, but they have other options as well, and have already filed for augmentation to their existing well.
Commissioner Eubanks noted that staff had some issues with the waste disposal and discharge and questioned how this would be handled. Mr. Ryan stated that the current system they were using would need to be updated, but felt this could be addressed within the application process and rectified.
Commissioner Eubanks asked about the toxic chemicals that were in use in this plant and Mr. Ryan and Mr. Obermeyer both confirmed that there were minimal toxic materials in use.
Chair Gibson asked about the possibility of this property being annexed to the Town of Wellington. Mr. Lafferty stated that this probably would not arise as a possibility for at least the next 20 years.
The Board agreed that this was indeed one of those projects that qualified as a true “Special Exception” as the operations are outside of the “norm” and provide a contribution to the community, and the nation, in many ways.
Mr. Lafferty proposed some conditions of approval; however, the Board wanted more time to review those conditions, so they will be reviewed and approved at a future land use hearing.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Rennels moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Obermeyer Hydro Amended Special Exception, File #06-Z1589, and bring back the conditions for final approval on July 21, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.
Motion carried 3-0.
The hearing adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2008
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with County Manager Frank Lancaster. Chair Gibson presided and Commissioners Eubanks was present. Also present were Bob Keister, Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Major Justin Smith, Sheriff’s Department; Laurel Kubin, Extension Department; Russ Legg, and Candice Phippen, Planning Department; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Patti Rosenfelder addressed the Board with continued concerns regarding a noise issue related to gun fire and trespassing. Ms. Rosenfelder stated that a neighbor in their community of Rist Canyon continually disrupts the peace and safety of the neighborhood with shooting episodes that persist for hours. She left a video tape for the Commissioners to watch, that captures a confrontation between the neighbor and Ms. Rosenfelder. The Board stated that they would view the tape, and be in touch with Ms. Rosenfelder.
Tom Bender addressed the Board, on behalf of the Farm Bureau, noting their support of the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) in Larimer County. Mr. Bender stated that they are always supportive of water supply projects, and explained that the water in the Poudre River is “unclaimed” and needs to be kept in Larimer County. Mr. Bender also noted that some individuals are fearful that it will “dry up” the Poudre River, but he believes that will not happen.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 16, 2008:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the weeks of June16, 2008.
Motion carried 2-0.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 30, 2008: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items, as presented on the Consent Agenda for June 24, 2008:
PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT: As recommended by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatements are presented for approval: Cooper Motors, Inc.; Fun-Wear Brands, Inc.; Gary and Marianne Jocobs; and GFG LLC. The following Petition for Abatement is presented for denial: The WorldMark Club (4 parcels).
06242008A001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS, DIVISION OF HOUSING
06242008A002 AMENDMENT #2 CONTRACT EXTENSION BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS AND LARIMER COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
06242008A003 1ST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SHYANNE PLANNED LAND DIVISION & PLANNED LAND DIVISION & PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND DOUG ERION AND JOSEPH AND JACQUELYN GEBHARDT
06242008A004 RESIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
06242008R001 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SWANSON MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT 1 CHANGE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
06242008R002 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NIBBELINK MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW
06242008R003 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND AMENDMENTS FOR THE WINDSOR-SEVERANCE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
06242008R004 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FRONTIER EQUINE MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW
06242008R005 FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WASTE NOT RECYCLING SPECIAL EXCEPTION EXTENSION OF TIME
06242008R006 RESOLUTION AND LETTER SUPPORTING THE GRANT APPLICATION FROM LARIMER COUNTY TO THE STATE BOARD OF THE GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO TRUST FUND FOR LARIMIE FOOTHILLS TRAIL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MISCELLANEOUS: Administrative Policy and Procedure 100.11B – Internal Policy Development Process
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following license was both approved and issued: Supermarket Liquors – Retail Liquor Store - Fort Collins.
Motion carried 2-0.
5. REQUEST FOR CARRY-OVER FUNDS TO SUPPORT A FINANCIAL LITERACY SUMMIT IN LARIMER COUNTY: Ms. Kubin explained that she had approximately $19,000 in carry-over funds from 2007, and requested the ability to use a portion of those funds to support a Financial Literacy Summit in Larimer County. She stated that they would partner with the United Way of Larimer County, the Consumer Credit Counseling Services of Northern Colorado, and the Loveland Library to host this event. Ms. Kubin stated that everyday the news reflects stories of people in financial difficulties that could have been prevented had they been more financially literate.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the use of carry-over funds to support a Financial Literacy Summit in Larimer County.
Motion carried 2-0.
6. REPEAL THE RESOLUTION FOR WAIVER/REDUCTION OF BACKGROUND CHECK FEES: Ms. Cookman requested Board approval to adopt the fees set by the State of Colorado for background checks for liquor licensing. She explained that in 1997 a previous Board of County Commissioners had reduced the fees for background checks to $25 per person, based upon staff’s recommendation at the time. Since then, the costs and staff time required to conduct the background checks has increased, and staff now recommends adopting the fees set by the State Liquor Enforcement Division. Commissioner Eubanks asked how many would be affected by this increase in fees. Mr. Lancaster stated that it would only affect those who might decide to purchase a liquor licensed establishment. Ms. Cookman concurred, and stated that the Clerk’s office accepts an average of one to two transfer of ownership or new license applications a month; so it would only affect a small number of individuals.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve repealing Resolution number R97-185g, regarding the Waiver/Reduction of Liquor License Background Investigation Fees, and set the new fee at $100 per person for background checks, effective July 1, 2008.
Motion carried 2-0.
7. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE FOSSIL CREEK AREA OF FORT COLLINS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA: Mr. Legg brought back the changes to the IGA regarding the Fossil Creek Area of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, noting that the Board had requested additional time to preview the IGA, prior to adopting it. The Board was satisfied with the agreement as presented.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve amending the Intergovernmental Agreement to move the Growth Management Area line to include Fossil Creek Area.
Motion carried 2-0.
06242008A006 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING COOPERATION ON MANAGING URBAN DEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
8. APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Ms. LaRue presented the following recommended appointments and reappointments to Board and Commissions and requested approval of the same:
Extension Advisory Committee: Seth Anthony appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011. Ralph Bender, Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson, and David Lee reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011.
Juvenile Community Review Board: John Gamez, Chris Jensen, Adrienne Killermann, and Teresa Sedlak appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011. Randall Lococo, Thaddeus Paul, and Ernie Portillos reappointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011.
Open Lands Advisory Board: John Ericson, Trudy Haines, and Jeff Hindman appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011.
Weed Control District Advisory Committee: Ernie Marx, and Robert Zimdahl appointed for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 2008, and expiring June 30, 2011.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appointments and reappointments to Boards and Commissions, as outlined above.
Motion carried 2-0.
9. REAPPOINTMENT OF PRE-HOSPITAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR LARIMER COUNTY TO NE RETAC: Mr. Lancaster explained that Larimer County is part of the Northeast Regional Emergency Trauma Advisory council, a group mandated by state statute to coordinate emergency trauma response throughout northeast Colorado. Mr. Lancaster further explained that reappointment to this council is necessary by July 1, 2008, and that Randy Lesher, the Chief of Thompson Valley Emergency Medical Service, is the current representative and he is will to continue serving in this capacity.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Eubanks moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the reappointment of Randy Lesher, Chief of the Thompson Valley EMS, as the County’s representative to the Northeast Colorado RETAC.
Motion carried 2-0.
10. PRESENTATION OF COUNTY PRIVATIZATION INVENTORY: Mr. Lancaster presented the privatization survey that was distributed to all Departments and Divisions and reviewed the results with the Board, noting that approximately 10% of the County budget is used for this purpose. Chair Gibson stated that this was useful information and asked that it be published on the Internet, or otherwise be made available to the public.
11. COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION: Mr. Lancaster requested that the Board forward the items they wished to see included in the legislative agenda for next year to him by July 2, 2008.
12: COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board reviewed their activities from the past week.
13. PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTING LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FOR THE TOWN OF WELLINGTON THROUGH THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT: Major Smith reviewed the contract with the commissioners, and the Board still had questions regarding how some of the revenues and expenditures were outlined in the Sheriff’s budget. Mr. Keister will work with Daryl Frank, the Sheriff’s Financial Services officer, in order to provide more detail for the Board.
15: LEGAL MATTERS: There were no legal matters to discuss.
The meeting ended at 10:50 a.m., with no further action taken.
THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2008
Minutes of a Special Joint meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park and the County Commissioners, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the 26th day of June, 2008. Meeting called to order by Commissioner Gibson.
Present: William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Trustees Eric Blackhurst
Commissioners Glen Gibson
Also Present: Attorney Greg White
Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator
Lowell Richardson, Deputy Town Administrator
Frank Lancaster, County Manager
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: Trustee Chuck Levine
Trustee Richard Homeier
County Commissioner Kathay Rennels
Commissioner Gibson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
FORMATION AND OPERATION OF THE LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT (LMD).
Town Administrator Halburnt stated a petition was certified by the Larimer County Commissioners and Estes Park Board of Trustees at the first public hearing held on June 5, 2008. She reviewed the legislation allowing the formation of a LMD by a statutory municipality, and the process for approving the new district and the new 2% lodging tax to be collected on nightly accommodations only. The next step in the formation of the district would be an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the County and the Town. If approved by the voters at the November election, an operations plan would need to be approved by November 15, 2008 in order to begin collecting the tax on January 1, 2009. The Town would fund all advertising and marketing efforts through the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) in 2009, while the new district collects the lodging tax in 2009 to be allocated towards 2010 expenses. The Town agrees to pay for salaries of the CVB for the first five years as outlined in the draft IGA.
CVB Director Pickering reviewed the needs for a marketing district in the Estes Valley, the make-up of the new Board, approval of the operating plan by the County and the Town, and the $800,000 currently earmarked from the General Fund for marketing would be used in the future for capital improvement projects. It is anticipated the LMD would direct the CVB staff regarding marketing, advertising and promotional programs; however, the Town would continue to fund special events, the conference center, Performance Park, and portions of the CVB.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT - DISCUSSION.
Attorney White presented the draft IGA for discussion. The agreement establishes the district only and does not include the operations of the new district. The Marketing District would be responsible for preparing an operations plan and a budget to be approved annually by both governing bodies. An operations plan must be adopted in order to collect the tax. The following IGA items were reviewed:
· District Service Area – The service area would be the Estes Valley Park and Recreational area minus Boulder County.
· Eligible Electors – Only those electors that are registered within Larimer County and reside within the service area of the district would be eligible to vote on the issue and the tax. The Marketing District is not a special district.
· Election Cost – The costs ($20,000) would be split by the County and the Town. The Town Clerk would be the election official.
· Board of Directors – The Board would consist of seven members with five from the Town and two from the County based on the percentage of tax that would be collected from properties within Town limits. The four year terms would be staggered and members would be limited to two full terms.
· Term – The agreement shall be for five years beginning with the establishment of the District, can be terminated by either party and renewed automatically for an additional five year term.
· Automatic Termination – The agreement shall terminate automatically if the issue fails at the General election; however, the agreement would be enforced if the issue passed and the lodging tax fails.
Comments and discussion were heard from the Commissioners and the Trustees: could be useful to have the Marketing Board members selected prior to the election to develop the operations plan and to provide a level of comfort for the electorate; eliminate term limits for the Board members; a provision should be added to allow reappointment of a term limited member if no other potential candidates apply; seats on the new Board should be advertised and structured interviews held to identify the best qualified candidate; and valuable resources and expertise may be lost on the Board if term limits are imposed.
Linda Lott/Vallaha Resort and President of Estes Lodging Association (ELA) stated the majority of the ELA members support the formation of the LMD; however, numerous questions have arisen from the organization, including the following:
· Has an IGA been created?
· It is understood by ELA that the current CVB staff would work under the LMD Board. Clarify why the LMD Board would need six to eight staff members? What would be the role of the CVB staff in the future?
· Would the CVB stakeholder fees be diverted?
· How was the projected lodging tax revenue of $1.2 million determined?
· If the County and the Town do not agree on the operations plan, would the lodging tax be used for the operations of the CVB?
Staff responded to the questions: A draft IGA has been developed; the LMD would hire the CVB staff in its current capacity and would oversee the product developed by the CVB staff; whether or not the CVB staff would be come employees of the LMD in the future has not been determined; the approximately $250,000 in stakeholder fees collected would go directly to the LMD; the estimated lodging tax to be collected was determined using 2007 sales tax revenue collected by lodging businesses within Estes Park; and the three bodies would have to work together and agree to compromise.
ELA would recommend the Marketing Board members complete an application; the positions would be published in both local papers; applications would be reviewed by a committee that would comprise of one Estes Park official, two Local Lodging members and one Larimer County official; and recommend the LMD Board members have lodging or business experience, two of the members have at least 5 years residence within the district, marketing or PR experience, three members from the lodging industry, one retail or restaurant, one financial and two based on experience. The most qualified should be appointed and not whether or not the represent the Town or the County. All members should live within the district. The members should not be government officials or employees of the governing bodies. ELA would advocate for no term limits.
David Habecker/Appenzell Inn spoke in favor of the district. He stated an additional question should be added to the ballot to bond $8 to $9 million to build the needed infrastructure and use the $800,000 for bond payments. He would advocated for the formal development of the operations plan to address the formation and relationships between the new district and the CVB prior to the election. He also suggested an IGA be developed between the LMD and the Town with regard to the CVB. The voters need some reassurance on how the LMD will operate prior to the election.
Ken Larsen/Riverstone Management expressed concern with the LMD possibly absorbing the cost of the CVB staff after the initial five year term. He stated that would decrease the dollars available for marketing.
Jim Tawney/Ponderosa Lodge reiterated his concern with the removal of the $800,000 budgeted by the Town for marketing. He suggested the Town continue to budget funds for marketing. The new LMD Board should determine whether or not there is a relationship with the CVB.
Dave Ranglos/Glacier Lodge spoke in favor of the district. The new Board should be open to other organizations, grant opportunities or marketing opportunities that may not be utilized or conducted by the current CVB.
Ken Arnold/Deercrest Resort stated lodging establishments are finding it difficult to raise the nightly rates enough to cover the increase in property tax. The addition of a lodging tax would compound the issue. He encouraged the Boards to appoint the new LMD Board prior to the election.
BOARD AND COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.
Comments are summarized: a clause should be added to the Terms for Board members to allow the reappointment of a member that is term limited; appoint the LMD Board prior to the election; investigate the potential of a bond for needed infrastructure improvements; appointment of the LMD Board could help alleviate the uncertainty raised by the electorate; a bond should be considered later once revenues have been determined; the funding of the CVB salaries by the Town for the first five years only should be re-evaluated; and the new lodging tax should be used solely for marketing and not salaries.
APPROVAL OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT.
Both governing bodies would review the IGA further and discuss potential changes. The IGA would be approved by the individual governing bodies at their respective meetings in the near future.
There being no further business, Commissioner Gibson adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
GLENN W. GIBSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk