Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 04/27/09  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, April 27, 2009

 

LAND USE

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were:  Karlin Goggin, County Addressing Coordinator; Michael Whitley, Toby Stauffer, Wendy Dionigi, and Candace Phippen, Planning Department; Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Health Department; Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Tamara Slusher, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels 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 Rennels explained that the following item is on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

1.    CRYSTAL LAKES 11TH FILING LOTS 54 AND 55 LOT CONSOLIDATION AND EASEMENT VACATION, FILE #09-S2869:   This is a request for a lot consolidation combining Lots 54 and 55 of Crystal Lakes 11th Filing and vacating the 20 foot utility easement along the common line.  If approved, the recording instrument for this application will be a Findings and Resolution from the Board of County Commissioners.

 

No neighbors have voiced any objection to this proposal.  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 Addressing Section

·  The Larimer County Assessor’s Office

·  The Larimer County Engineering Department Development Review Services

·  The Larimer County Code Compliance Section

 

The proposed lot consolidation will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any County agency.  Also, it will not result in any additional lots and the easement vacation will not leave any properties without utility service.  The staff finds that the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the lot consolidation of Lots 54 and 55 in Crystal Lakes 11th Filing and the 20 foot utility easement vacation along the common line of said lots, File #09-S2869, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution of the County Commissioners recorded by October 27, 2009, 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 Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda for April 27, 2009.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.         COYOTE HOLLER WAY ROAD NAME APPEAL:  This is a request to appeal the road name selected by the County Addressing Coordinator and name a road after their selection instead of a fellow property owners’ submittal.

 

As part of the Rural Addressing Improvement Project, staff determined the access used by two properties met the requirement for road naming as per the County Code.  By County Code, when an access serves multiple properties, as is the case here, and/or exceeds one quarter mile in length, the road shall be named.  In accordance with the County Code, property owners were provided an opportunity to name the road.

 

Over the course of time, road names were submitted by both parties.  Peterson’s submitted Coyote Holler Way and Wallace submitted Coyote Hollow Way.  There was no agreement between owners as to the road name.  Per the County Code Section 10-176(b)(1)(c), in the event of a tie vote or in the event no property owners return the form, the County Addressing Coordinator shall select the road name at his/her sole discretion.  The road name selected was COYOTE HOLLER WAY.   The appellant is seeking to overturn this decision and officially name the road Coyote Hollow Way.

 

Property owners were given 45 days to respond to the county initiated road naming letter.  During this time, property owners Robert & Dawn Peterson, responded quickly with the road name suggestion Coyote Hollar Way.  The road name was reviewed and initially was accepted as a compliant suggestion. 

 

Ms. Wallace sent an email on December 8, 2008, to indicate the road name of their choice as Coyote Hollow Way.  With two different submittals by two property owners, the decision per County Code was placed with the County Addressing Coordinator.  After review of the road names, as County Addressing Coordinator, the road name selected was Coyote Holler Way.  Both parties received notification regarding this selection.  Ms. Wallace expressed discontent over the spelling of Hollar.  After discussion and verification with LETA (Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority) there was no objection to the road name with the exception the preference was to have the road name be of common spelling and change Hollar to Holler.  The property owners were again notified of the official road name as Coyote Holler Way. 

 

Ms. Wallace states her appeal is based upon several rationales:

 

1.   The applicant claims the word Holler is substandard word according to the dictionary and is not consistent with the sound coyotes actually make. 

2.   The word Hollow means valley or basin which describes the topography for the area.

3.   The road naming effort was to be cooperative by affected property owners but turned out to be decided upon first come first serve basis by the county.

4.   The applicant claims not all property owners who were affected were allowed to have input on the road naming process.

 

The word “holler” is found in the Webster’s Dictionary and does not have an asterisk or description of being a substandard word.  The meaning is to cry out.  In discussion with the Peterson’s, who submitted this road name, they intended the word to be holler to be descriptive of the coyotes that cry out at night.  In review the adopted County Code, the following is noted:

 

·  Section 10-175(b)(f): The road name shall be easy to spell and pronounce.  All road names must use common spelling.

 

In light of the original submittal of Hollar, the word was changed to meet this intent.  Holler meets the above criteria as well as the property owner’s intent. 

 

The road naming decision was based upon several deciding factors.  The two names to select from were Coyote Holler Way and Coyote Hollow Way.  Road names are reviewed using multiple criteria.  The road names are compared with road names currently in use in the county.  After review of the road names, staff found 19 road names throughout Larimer County that use the name HOLLOW in it as the second word.  Staff did not find one existing road name with HOLLER.  With that being said, it was decided the most unique and non-duplicated road name choice would be Coyote Holler Way. 

 

The applicant also claims not all property owners were involved in the road naming process.  According to the county code Section 10-176(b):

 

·  The county addressing coordinator will mail the notice to the affected property owners. Affected property owners include those persons whose land has a constructed and/or a declared, defined vehicular access has an existing address, or existing structures taking access from the road proposed to be named or renamed.

 

The two properties that meet the criteria are the Peterson and Wallace properties.  The property to which Ms. Wallace refers to is undeveloped, has no defined vehicular access, and no addressable structure on the land.  In this case, per the county code, the property owners with naming rights were officially notified and provided opportunity to name the road.

 

Staff’s recommendation is to deny the request to change the name from Coyote Holler Way to Coyote Hollow Way on the basis of:

                       

·  The road name of Coyote Holler Way is resolution compliant and is not a substandard word by dictionary terminology.

·  With 19 existing road names using the word Hollow, Coyote Holler is the most unique road name selection.  Holler is currently not used in the county road system.

·  In accordance with the county code, the property owners affected by this road naming process were duly notified and provided opportunity to name the road.

·  If the County Commissioners approve this appeal, work to readdress properties is “out of scope” work in the consultant’s contract and not budgeted within the project.  The county code was followed and any change to this road would be considered out of scope work by the consultant and additional fees would be charged to make any change.  All re-work will be charged which will be either to the property owners or authorized for payment by and from the County Commissioners.  The cost estimate of out of scope work in this case is $450.

·  LETA and the County have funded monies toward this project to ensure a systematic, logical, and consistent addressing system is achieved.  Staff consulted with LETA regarding the road name and made acceptable modifications as requested to the spelling.

·  Per the County Code, the County Addressing Coordinator’s decision shall be upheld by the County Commissioners unless it is shown by a preponderance of evidence that the decision is inconsistent with or does not promote the intent and purpose of the county code.

·  By allowing this appeal and changing the decision of one road name over another property owner’s road name will only increase the number of these types of appeals and amplify tense situations between homeowners.

 

The appellants, Georgette Wallace Jones and Barney Michael Jones, addressed the Board and expressed their concerns as to staff’s decision, detailing the improper spelling, and the choice to exclude vacant landowners from the voting process.  Discussion ensued as to the spelling of the name and the choice of Holler versus Hollow.  Commissioner Rennels asked that staff look at the reason why the vacant landowners were not given a chance to vote on the street name as access could be provided by this road at some point in the future. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to replace the road name of Coyote Holler Way with Coyote Hollow Way.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         STRICKHOLM CODE COMPLIANCE HEARING:  This is a notification to the Board that the property owner is in violation of Section 4.1.5 O-Open Zoning District of the Larimer County Land Use Code and Section 105 Permits of the 2006 International Residential Code adopted by Larimer County by virtue of converting the upper level of an existing barn into a dwelling unit on the property without the required County approvals and permits.

 

The property, consisting of two contiguous parcels, is located on Glade Road, approximately three miles north of Highway 34 in Loveland, Colorado.  The southern parcel contains approximately 25 acres.  The northern parcel contains approximately 21.75 acres.  The owner operates Charisma Dairy Farms on the property with up to 250 head of livestock.

 

Staff received an anonymous complaint on September 18, 2002, detailing the apartment located in a barn on the property having problems with mice, electrical work, and gas lines.  The house was constructed prior to building permit requirements.  The upper portion of the barn was converted to an apartment in the 1990’s without first obtaining a building permit.

 

Several telephone calls, meetings, and on-site visits have taken place with the owner and staff.  The owner submitted his application (Planning File No. 08-SP0217) for approval to use the apartment in the barn as a farmstead dwelling.  In his application for the farmstead, the owner supplied the following information:

 

“The living quarters in question in the dairy barn were remodeled from office, bathroom, and grain storage in 1992 to their present one bedroom, kitchen/dining, and living rooms.  It has been in existence for 16 years with, as far as I know, no problems.”

 

The application was administratively approved by the Planning Director on April 2, 2008, conditional on the owner obtaining the required change of occupancy building permit and inspection approvals for the apartment within a certain time period.  Despite several reminders, the owner has failed to obtain the required building permit and inspection approvals.  The farmstead approval, therefore, became null and void. 

 

To the best of staff’s knowledge, the apartment in the barn is still being used and occupied by the tenants.

 

Dwelling units constructed without prior County approval and permits create risks and concerns that can adversely affect occupants, property owners, neighbors, and the public.  Pursuant to the Larimer County Land Use Code, a farmstead is limited to one dwelling for the owner/operator of the property plus one additional dwelling for each 40 acres of contiguous ownership.  Limitations on the number of dwellings allowed on properties were developed, in part, to ensure fair and equitable impacts on infrastructure including water, sewage, and roads.  Health and safety risks for occupants of illegal dwelling units include exposure to fire, explosion, unsanitary water, inadequate sewage disposal, improper electrical wiring, and improper installation of gas-fired appliances.  Also, if a dwelling unit is not of record with the County, fire and emergency rescue personnel may not be able to respond in a timely fashion to emergency calls.

 

Staff recommends that the Board find that violations of the Larimer County Land Use and Building Codes exist.  Staff further recommends that the Board require compliance with County regulations within a timeframe determined by the Board, and authorize legal action if the set deadlines are not met.

 

The owner of the property did not attend this hearing and gave no written comment.  Staff informed the Board that there has been an ongoing lack of communication with the property owner, making this case difficult to resolve.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board finds violations of the Larimer County Land Use and Building Codes exist, the Board requires compliance as shown below, and authorizes legal action if the deadlines are not met:

 

1.   Vacate the apartment use immediately.

2.   The Planning Director reinstate the farmstead approval obtained under File No. 08-SP0217 on the following conditions documented in an amended farmstead agreement:

a.   The owner will obtain a change of occupancy permit and all required inspection approvals for the conversion of the upper portion of the barn into an apartment within 60 days from the date of this hearing.

b.   The apartment above the barn will remain vacant until such time as final inspection approvals are obtained under a valid change of occupancy permit from the Larimer County Building Department, Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, and State Electrical Board.

c.   No fees are payable with reinstatement of the farmstead approval except for recording fees associated with the recording of the amended farmstead agreement ($5.00 per page, plus $1.00 document fee).

3.   If any or all of these conditions are not met, the farmstead approval will become null and void.  Legal action is authorized to enforce County regulations.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.         FRUIT CONNECTION CODE COMPLIANCE BUSINESS PROCESS HEARING:  This is notification to the Board that the property owners are in violation of Section 4.1.2 (FA-1 Farming Zoning District) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, and Section 105 Permits of the 2006 International Building Code adopted by Larimer County by virtue of operating a business specializing in the distribution of fruit produced off-site to retail customers on-site in an FA-1 Zoning District, which is not an allowed use, and by virtue of using an outdoor cooler to preserve the fruit without first obtaining a building and/or electrical permit.

 

The property is located on the east side of County Road 7 between Harmony Road and County Road 36.  The property is located within the Fort Collins’ Growth Management Area and is adjacent to City property on two sides.  Currently, there is no land use application process available by which the company can receive approval to legally operate a retail fruit sales business at this location.

 

Code Compliance File 07-CC0359 was initiated on November 19, 2007, upon receipt of an inquiry from City of Fort Collins’ staff questioning a business use on this property.  City of Fort Collins staff contacted Larimer County Planning staff, who, in turn, referred the issue to the Code Compliance Section. 

 

In May 2008, the owners purchased a vacant piece of property located at 5786 E. County Road 58 in Fort Collins with the intent of building a home and moving their retail fruit sales business to the site.  In the interim, the owners were allowed to continue to operate the business at its current location and intensity with the understanding that a special exception application would be submitted to allow the business to legally operate at the new site.  A sketch plan application was made in July 2008, and a sketch plan meeting was held with Staff in September 2008.  The owners were notified by Planner Michael Whitley by letter dated November 25, 2008, that in order for the business to continue to operate at the current site, substantial progress on the special exception application for approval to operate the business at the new location must be made.  To date, no progress has been made on the special exception application.

 

Pursuant to a telephone conversation with Jim Devore, Larimer County Department of Health & Environment, if the fruit being stored in the outdoor cooler is whole, uncut fruit, no approvals from the Health Department are required.  If, on the other hand, value-added foods like milk or cut fruit are being refrigerated, a retail food license may be required.  

 

The FA-1 Zoning District does not allow retail sales.  It has been determined that the current retail sales business cannot meet home occupation standards due to the amount of traffic generated by the business.  Concerns about the impacts on adjacent property owners’ quality of life from traffic, dust, noise, and visual impacts may be raised.  The site is a residential lot, in a semi-rural area, and it is reasonable to assume that adjoining properties will not become commercial.  A special exception application process to allow the retail business in the FA-1 Zoning District is not available because the property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.

 

Staff recommends that the Board find that violations of the Larimer County Land Use and Building Codes exist.  Staff further recommends that the Board require compliance with County Regulations within a timeframe determined by the Board, and authorize legal action if the set deadlines are not met.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the different options the property owners may exercise in which the business may continue to operate and be in compliance with the Fort Collins Growth Management Area and Larimer County Land Use Code requirements. 

 

Several members of the audience addressed the Board in support of allowing the business to continue operations until a compliant location can be secured. These individuals expressed to the Board that the impact to the neighborhood is virtually non-existent, stating that many times they are not even aware of the extra activity on the property.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board finds violations of the Larimer County Land Use and Building Codes exist, the Board requires compliance as shown below, and authorizes legal action if the deadlines are not met:

 

1.   The business is allowed to continue at its current level of activity for 12 months at its current location, conditioned upon the following:

a.   The property owners obtain building and electrical permits for the commercial use of the outdoor cooler.  Typically, in order to operate outdoor cooler units, three-phase wiring is required.  Prior to using the cooler, a building permit (for tie downs and setbacks), and a State of Colorado electrical permit and inspection approvals are required.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 4:51 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present.  Also present were:  Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Emily Dawson-Petersen, Larimer Center for Mental Health; Larry Timm, Rob Helmick, Matt Lafferty, and Karlin Goggin, Planning Department; Sheriff Alderden, Sheriff’s Department; John Gamlin, and Linda Illum, Human Resources Department; Linda Hoffmann, Rural Land Use Center; Marc Engemoen, Public Works Division; George Hass, Jeannine Haag, and Bill Ressue, County Attorney’s Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.         PUBLIC COMMENT:  Steve Childs, President of the Glen Haven Preservation Community Group, suggested that the Board consider assigning one single zip code, 80532, to the Glen Haven area for both parcel and mailing addresses.  He presented a response from the United States Postal Service regarding this matter and reviewed the contents with the Board.  Kimberly Culp, Executive Director or the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA), addressed the Board and stated that LETA’s staff will work with the County’s staff to make any adjustments at no cost to the County.

 

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 20, 2009:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of April 20, 2009, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 4, 2009:   Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA:   

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as presented on the Consent Agenda for April 28, 2009:

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:   As proposed by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement are presented for approval:  Ferrero I-25 Chrysler Jeep Dodge; Northern Colorado Pulmonary Consultants PC; and McEntee Family, LLC. 

 

The following Petitions for Abatement are presented for denial:  NMC Cottonwood LLC (2 years); Claire Louise Martin; Charles and Dorothy Hein – Trustees; Fulton Trust; Silvia Sorensen; D&N Enterprises (2 years); Don and Nancy Skaggs (2 parcels, 2 years); Dennis and Janice Griffith (2 parcels, 2 years); Frederick and Donna Ebert (2 years).

 

04282009A001           NATURAL GAS SALES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND SEMINOLE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC

 

04282009A002           COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CDB07-044G URGENT NEED SUBCONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND UNITED WAY OF WELD COUNTY

 

04282009A003           UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY COOP AGREEMENT FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION OF PEAK LOAD REDUCTION ON DISTRIBUTION FEEDERS USING DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS

 

04282009R001           RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING SETBACKS

 

04282009R002           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL EAST OWASSA LOTS 46A & 48, BLOCK 31 (FILE #08-S2834)

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were approved and/or issued:  Windjammer Roadhouse & Grill – Modification of Premises – Loveland; Horsetooth Liquor – Transfer of Ownership – Fort Collins.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  MENTAL HEALTH MONTH PROCLAMATION:  Ms. Dawson-Peterson requested the Board approve proclaiming the month of May as Mental Health Month in Larimer County, in the effort to raise awareness and understanding of mental health illness.  Commissioner Johnson read the proclamation aloud. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners proclaim the month of May as Mental Health Month in Larimer County.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

6.  CARRYOVER FUND REQUEST FOR HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT:   Mr. Gamlin requested the use of $7,500 from budget carryover funds to purchase an applicant tracking software system, to make this process of screening applicants more efficient and cost effective.   Ms. Illum explained that they system would electronically streamline the process, eliminate the manual paper sorting of applications by both Human Resources and the hiring departments, and would provide electronically updated information directly to the applicants. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve $7,500 in carry over funding to set up NEOGOV and train employees on its use.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.  USE OF COMMUNITY NAME WITHOUT ZIP CODE AS AN ADDITIONAL SITE ADDRESS IN THE GLEN HAVEN AREA:  Mr. Timm explained that the citizens of Glen Haven have requested that the County assign them a site address that is based on the community of Glen Haven.  He noted that most mail delivery in this community is by way of post office boxes, and is addressed to Glen Haven, Colorado, 80532; however, some rural delivery is sent directly to a parcel site address and in that case, it’s addressed to either an Estes Park or Drake, Colorado address.   Mr. Timm stated that the County can assign a rural parcel address of Glen Haven, but does not have the authority to designate zip codes, as this is the sole responsibility of the United States Postal Service (USPS). 

 

Discussion ensued, and both Commissioner Donnelly and Commissioner Johnson felt it was appropriate to designate the 80532 zip code to parcels listed on the county’s internal parcel tracking system.  Chair Rennels disagreed, as the County has no authority to designate zip codes, and the 80532 zip code is already assigned by the USPS to be used specifically for post office box delivery; it is not intended for use at the parcel level.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve of directing staff to provide an additional site address for all parcels within the Glen Haven boundary drawn by the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority that is Glen Haven, Colorado, and assign the 80532 zip code to the same.

 

Motion carried 2-1; Chair Rennels dissenting.

 

 

8.  APPOINTMENT OF ONE ADDITIONAL MEMBER OF THE HORSE BUSINESS FACILITIES REGULATIONS STUDY WORKING GROUP:  Ms. Hoffmann explained that there is one seat available on the Working Group, as the Northern Colorado Dressage Association has declined the invitation to appoint a representative.  Ms. Hoffman stated that after reconsidering the submittals for the original call for applicants, she is recommending Lisa Oppenheimer, owner/operator of Fort Collins Equestrian Center, for the position.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners appoint Lisa Oppenheimer to the Horse Business Facilities Regulations Study Working Group.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

9.  SET THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ HEARING DATE FOR THE DATE:  Mr. Helmick requested that the Board set the hearing to consider the Estes Valley Fire Protection District Service Plan for May 18, 2009, at 6:30 p.m., at the Estes Park Museum, 200 4th Street, Estes Park, Colorado.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve setting the hearing for the Estes Valley Fire Protection District Service Plan for May 18, 2009, at 6:30 p.m., at the Estes Park Museum, 200 4th Street, Estes Park, Colorado.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10.  WORKSESSION:  Mr. Engemoen noted that he had received a request from Representative Markey’s office asking if the Board wished to elevate any road projects in Larimer County.  The Board did not wish to elevate additional projects within Larimer County.   

 

11.  COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:   The Board reviewed their attendance at events during the previous week.

 

10.  LEGAL MATTERS:   Mr. Lafferty explained that Mr. Clausen of the McBlair Ranch has requested the ability to create an outside venue for weddings, etc., on his property, in order to give him another season to secure funding for building improvements.  Mr. Lafferty stated that the Health Department has given their approval of this, and Mr. Ressue stated that he would craft a Letter of Agreement, which clearly indicates that the outside venue would be for only the 2009 season.  The Board directed staff to proceed with this request.

 

Mr. Hass then requested that the Board go into executive session for legal advice (affidavit provided).

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson 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 and the following action was taken:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the agreement and release of Ina Jean Fletcher, and authorize related funds to be taken from the Sheriff’s Department budget, and back-filled from the County General Fund.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Employee Agreement and Release

 

The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2009

 

ABATEMENT HEARINGS

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 1:30 p.m. to consider several Petitions for Abatements.  Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present.  Also present were:  Brooke Walser, Jason Witty, Ann Piccone, Kathy Thornton, Kevin Miller, Jason Marks, Jodi Masters, and Jon Cowling, Assessor’s Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.   KEVIN AND JUDY GARRITY – PARCEL #95172-19-015:  Ms. Walser noted that the subject property is located in Mariana Butte, in Loveland.  She presented and reviewed the comparables used to arrive at the assessed value of $432,933. 

 

Mr. Garrity stated that the home was on the market for over 600 days and the price of the home was reduced multiple times, due to the fact that it would not sell.  He explained that he paid $280,000 for the home in 2008 and requested that the value be set at $280,000.  His realtor, Jennifer Kelly, stated that the home does not have a back yard, and that it truly is a one-bedroom home, as the other two bedrooms are located in the basement.  Chair Rennels asked if this home was reclaimed by the bank and Mr. Garrity replied in the affirmative.

 

Chair Rennels stated that the owners got a really great deal on their home, but that the Assessor’s responsibility is to ensure that homes are assessed fair and equitably.  The subject home sold for $419,000 in the sales time-frame of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2006.  Chair Rennels stated that the law requires the Assessor to only consider sales within that time-frame, so the sale for $280,000 cannot even be considered until some point in the future.

 

Discussion ensued; the Board considered the flat real estate market, and when looking at the comparables, they chose to use the lowest median square footage rate and recalculate the assessed value of the subject property to $370,000.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners partially approve the petition for abatement for Kevin and Judy Garrity, parcel number 95172-19-015, and set the assessed value at $370,000.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.   ERNEST L. WIMMER – PARCEL #80154-00-005:  Mr. Witty stated that the subject property was a 35-acre vacant land parcel, and noted that only two sales had occurred within the time-frame with a median sales price of $64,000, which is the assessed value on Mr. Wimmer’s property. 

 

Mr. Wimmer stated that he was concerned that his taxes were higher than those of neighboring properties that had improvements on them.  Mr. Witty explained that vacant land is taxed at a much higher rate than improved land.  Some discussion ensued regarding whether or not the land qualified as agricultural, but the related covenants expressly prohibit agricultural use. 

 

The Board found that the Assessor’s determination was accurate, and voted to uphold the assessed value of $64,000.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the petition for abatement for Ernest L. Wimmer, parcel number 80154-00-005, and uphold the assessed value of $64,000.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.   BROOKE ELIZABETH RAYMOND – PARCEL #87044-05-114:   Mr. Marks stated that the subject property is located in the Waterglen Subdivision on East Vine Drive.  He reviewed comparables, and noted that the property had previously received an abatement of taxes in 2007, when the owner agreed that $179,000 was a fair value for the home.  Mr. Marks stated that nothing has changed and there have been no reappraisals since that time last year. 

 

Richard Raymond, speaking on behalf of his daughter, stated that he was unaware that the law sets the time-frame that can be considered, and has he known then he would not have encouraged his daughter to petition again this year.  He thanked the Board for their time and consideration.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the petition for abatement for Brooke Elizabeth Raymond, parcel number 87044-05-114, and uphold the assessed value of $179,000.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

The hearing adjourned at 2:30 p.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

 

__________________________________________

                        KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

­­­______________________________________

Tamara Slusher, Deputy Clerk

 

 

­­­______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk

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