Loveland Bike Trail
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 07/13/09  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, July 13, 2009

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

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:  Jill Bennett, Russ Legg, and Candace Phippen, Planning Department; Jeff Goodell and Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Deputy County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing 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 was on the consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:

 

1.         CRYSTAL LAKES 4TH FILING LOTS 36 AND 55 AMENDED PLAT, FILE #09-S2884:  This is a request for approval of an amended plat to reconfigure a lot line and vacate the 14-foot utility easement along the common lot line Lots 36 and 55 of the Crystal Lakes Subdivision 4th Filing. A well for Lot 55 was drilled 5.5-feet north of the property line, extending into Lot 36; therefore, the property owners of Lot 36 and 55 would like to amend the plat to show the proper lot line and vacate the 7-foot easement that exists on each side of the line.

 

The proposed plat amendment will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency, nor will it result in any additional lots. 

 

Staff recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lots 36 and 55 of Crystal Lakes Subdivision 4th Filing and Easement Vacation, file #09-S2884, subject to the following conditions (and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature):

 

1.    All conditions of approval shall be met and the final plat recorded by January 13, 2010, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

2.         The vacation of the utility easement and the reconfiguration of the lots lines shall be finalized at such time when the plat and the findings and resolution of the County Commissioners is recorded.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda for July 13, 2009, as it appears above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

2.         LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING 1041, FILE #09-CA0094:   This is a request to designate pipelines and storage facilities for natural gas and petroleum derivates as Matters of State Interest in the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission discussed the proposed designation of pipelines and storage facilities for natural gas and petroleum derivates as Matters of State Interest at their hearing on May 20, 2009. At that time, the Commission reviewed the comments submitted by Xcel Energy, Rocky Mountain Pipeline System, and Colorado Interstate Gas, as well as the testimony of representatives from Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy and Rocky Mountain Pipeline System supported the proposed designation, which would specifically exclude maintenance activities on existing pipelines, and Xcel representatives recommended adding a more technical definition of a transmission pipeline. After moderate discussion, the Planning Commission supported the original proposed language.

 

Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #09-CA0094, be approved as follows (all new text is underlined):

 

Section 14.4Matters of State Interest 

 

H.         Siting and development of new pipelines designed for transmission of natural gas or other petroleum derivatives of 10-inch diameter or larger. This designation shall include appurtenant facilities such as compressor stations, pipe valves and other mechanical controls that are part of the pipeline project. This designation shall not include the maintenance, repair, adjustment or removal of an existing pipeline or the relocation of an existing pipeline within the same easement or right-of-way. The designation shall also not include the addition, replacement, expansion or maintenance of appurtenant facilities on existing pipelines.

 

I.          Siting and development of new or expanded storage facilities of  50,000-cubic-feet or more of natural gas or 35,000-barrels or more of petroleum derivatives. 

 

Sec. 14.5.B. – Specific Exemptions

 

The regulatory provisions of this section shall not apply to any of the following:

 

2.          An interstate natural gas utility regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or its successor, provided the following requirements and procedures are complied with by the utility whenever site selection and construction of major facilities within Larimer County are proposed:

 

a.         Copies of all materials (i.e., environmental impact statement, application for certification of public convenience and necessity) filed with a federal and/or state regulatory agency shall also be filed with the County Commissioners within five days;

 

b.         Written notice of all scheduled public proceedings before the federal and/or state regulatory agency shall be given to the County Commissioners not less than thirty (30) days prior to the proceedings, provided further, however, that if the public utility receives less than thirty (30) days’ notice it shall give written notice to the County Commissioners within five working days after it receives its notice.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Land Use Code Amendments Regarding 1041, file #09-CA0094.

 

Motion Carried 3-0.

 

3.         COLUMBINE LODGE RAFTING BUSINESS CODE COMPLIANCE: The property owner is in violation of Section 4.8 (Nonconformities) of the Larimer County Land Use Code by virtue of operating a commercial kayak company on the subject property in addition to existing, nonconforming business uses operated on the property by the Columbine Lodge. The operation of the kayak company is considered an expansion of the existing nonconforming use and any expansion, or nonconforming use requires Board approval.

 

The property in violation is located approximately ten miles west of the intersection of Highway 14 (Poudre River Canyon Highway) and Highway 287 and is zoned O-Open.

 

Beginning May 6, 2009, Jamie Jasinski, owner/operator of Poudre River Kayak, LLC, called the Larimer County Planning Department to see if he needed to do anything for the grand opening on May 16, 2009, for his new check-in center at the Columbine Lodge. Thereafter, Planning staff, Code Compliance staff, Mr. Jasinski, and Michael Jensen, of Poudre River Paradise, spoke several times about whether the kayak company could operate legally from the site.

 

On June 3, 2009, Code Compliance Supervisor Candace Phippen met with Jamie Jasinski for an on-site inspection. The inspection confirmed that Mr. Jasinski’s business on site is limited to a booking office inside the main Columbine store with outdoor storage of 10 to 12 kayaks.  Mr. Jasinski lives on the property in a mobile home just west of the store. The only vehicle associated with the kayak business is a van owned by Mr. Jasinski, which advertises the business and is used to transport kayaks to approved sites along the river. 

 

Property owner Michael Jensen was advised to submit a special review application to allow for the expansion of existing nonconforming uses on the property, including the operation of the kayak business, will be submitted to the Larimer County Planning Department on or before July 13, 2009. Planning staff anticipates several issues will need to be addressed in order for a special review application to be approved.

 

Concerns regarding the operation of a business at this location include impacts on existing water and sewage disposal systems, encroachment into the FEMA-designated floodplain area of the property, increased traffic, and compliance with county regulations for expansion of nonconforming uses.

 

The section of the Larimer County Land Use Code relating to nonconformities governs uses that were legally established prior to the adoption of the code but that do not comply with one or more requirements of the current code. The provisions of the section are intended to recognize the interests of property owners in continuing and putting to productive use nonconforming uses while also encouraging as many aspects of such uses be brought into conformance with current code requirements as is reasonably practicable.

 

A nonconforming use cannot be expanded or changed in character without first obtaining county approval. A change in character or expansion of a nonconforming use occurs when the nature, volume, density, intensity, frequency or degree of use is altered. Factors that are taken into consideration when determining whether a change in character or expansion has taken place are:

 

1.         Increase in number of employees or trips generated by customer traffic.

2.         Changes in business hours of operation.

3.         Change in activity, products or services.

4.         Effect the change has on the neighborhood (light, noise, or air quality).

 

Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners find that a violation of the Larimer County Land Use Code exists, require compliance with County regulations within a time determined by the Commissioners, and authorize legal action if deadlines set by the County Commissioners are not met. 

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing to public comment and Jamie Jasinski, owner and operator of Poudre River Kayak, LLC, addressed the Board. Mr. Jasinski stated that his business is one of only 3 to be issued a permit to kayak on the Poudre River and is only allowed to teach 150 students during the April to October season.

 

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Jasinski if he would be able to relocate his business and Mr. Jasinski stated that he said he would not.

 

Michael Jensen, owner of Columbine Lodge, addressed the Board and stated that he and Mr. Jasinski would be submitting a special review application and payment immediately following today’s hearing. Mr. Jensen explained that he has been trying to attract a “more wholesome” crowd to his facility and the kayaking company has been a great help.  

 

Commissioner Donnelly asked Mr. Jensen whether the facilities at the lodge are capable of accommodating the additional traffic flow caused by the kayak business. Mr. Jensen stated he believes they are able to accommodate the increased traffic.  

 

Commissioner Donnelly then asked Mr. Ryan if he believed the facilities were in fact able to accommodate the increased traffic and Mr. Ryan stated that he could not answer because he has not had a chance to review the plumbing system on the property.

 

Kristina Lahnert, adjacent property owner, addressed the Board and voiced her support of both the Columbine Lodge and Poudre River Kayak. Ms. Lahnert stated that she is very pleased with what Mr. Jensen has done with the property since obtaining ownership and believes the kayaking business will only further Mr. Jensen’s success.

 

Commissioner Rennels voiced her concern with shutting down the kayaking business and stated she would rather allow Mr. Jasinski to remain open for the rest of the season. Commissioner Donnelly agreed but voiced his concern with the increased use of the facilities on the property.

 

Commissioner Johnson stated his support for the business and his concern with allowing it to remain open for next year’s season if the application is delayed. To remedy Commissioner Johnson’s concern, Chair Rennels suggested the Board condition their motion to disallow operations after December 31, 2009.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners find a violation does exist and allow the business to continue on the present site until December 31, 2009. Thereafter, the business is not allowed to operate on the present site until special review approval is obtained.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

4.         WARD RECYCLING PRODUCTS ZONING VIOLATION:   On June 1, 2009, a public hearing was held before the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners for approval of an application submitted on behalf of Richard Ward to operate a facility to recycle asphalt and concrete for road maintenance projects. The Commissioners tabled the discussion on October 19, 2009, to provide the City of Loveland time to consider whether the city desires to amend its Comprehensive Plan and incorporate the property into city limits. In the meantime, conditions of operation for the recycle business on site were limited to the following:

 

1.         Five truck loads of material may leave the site per day.

2.         No rock crushing or processing is allowed on site.

3.         Current access and haul routes must be used—no new access may be constructed.

 

Mr. Ward then submitted a request for permission to screen certain materials on the property for a limited period of time in order to remove the materials from the site. Because Mr. Ward’s request is outside of the scope approved by the Board on June 1, 2009, the current written request now appears before the Board.

 

A site inspection was conducted by Code Compliance Officer Eric Fried on June 4, 2009, and it did appear that some material has been removed as directed by the Board in June. Several near-by property owners have raised concerns about impacts on their quality of life from traffic, dust and noise caused by the business.

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing to the applicant and Richard Ward, applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Ward stated that his request to screen materials results from the Board’s direction to remove materials from the property. He explained that in order to remove a large amount of the previously crushed material, he must first screen the material to separate it by size. Mr. Ward assured the Board that he does not have anywhere else to screen the material and he will not be bringing in any additional material to the site.

 

Mr. Ward explained that he is requesting to screen for three days total but in order to accommodate for weather, he would like to choose those three days out of ten days selected by the Board.

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing to public comment. Lori Goebel, representative from Arbor Meadows Home Owners Association, addressed the Board and requested the denial of the application due to noise and air pollution. Ms. Goebel also informed the Board of road work being conducted on Boise Avenue, the main access to the subject property, to be conducted through August; and suggested any increased traffic by Mr. Ward would be extra burdensome to all other motorists.

 

Chair Rennels stated she is in support of Mr. Ward removing material from the property but would not support an increase in the number of truckloads in and out of the property due to the nearby road construction. She also requested Mr. Ward remove the screener from the site once the screening is completed.

 

Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson agreed to support screening in an attempt to expedite removal of materials.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Mr. Ward’s request to screen certain materials on the subject property for three days in order to remove materials from the site. Screening must occur between July 20, 2009, and July 30, 2009, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing recessed at 4:00 p.m.

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 6:30 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were:  Rob Helmick, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeannine Haag, Deputy Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing 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.

 

1.         PROSPECT MOUNTAIN WATER DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN, FILE #08-G0156:  This is a request for approval of the service plan for formation of a single purpose special district for domestic water service. The purpose of the proposed district is to fund and maintain the conversion of an existing private water company, to a special district.

 

This application was originally heard by the Board of County Commissioners on February 21, 2009.  At that time, the Board tabled the request to April 13, 2009, and subsequently to May 18, 2009. The tabling action was taken to allow the applicant to address a number of issues raised by staff, the Board of County Commissioners, and by landowners within the proposed district. At the last hearing on May 18, 2009, staff again recommended tabling to allow the applicant to complete the survey, conduct analysis of the results, and to further respond to the issues raised by the Board of County Commissioners in their original tabling. 

 

Those issues included the need for “education and information” of the landowners in the proposed district, an engineering analysis of the system capabilities and condition, water quality testing, and new financial records to provide detailed information on transition funding and establish reserves for water rights acquisition and maintenance.

 

Since the hearing in February, the applicant has conducted a meeting for property owners and customers. While this addresses, in part, the accessibility of the plan, additional questions related to the proposed plan remain. The applicant proposes to fund, through an advance to the district, when formed, $20,000 for the necessary studies. The most recent financial statement does reflect an amount for a maintenance reserve. While no capital reserve is committed in the plan for the potential acquisition of water rights, the proponent has committed to lease the necessary water rights to the district at $1.00 per year for up to 10-years and at market rates thereafter. 

 

An examination of the survey reveals a generally favorable reaction to the premise of a district; however, there is less agreement with respect to the method of service. There does appear to be support in letting the district decide how to proceed.  This is problematic. At the last hearing the Board of County Commissioners clearly indicated that for the Board to consider approving the plan certain information had to be provided to the county and the landowners as well as the outreach effort to educate the landowners. While the outreach effort has apparently paid off in terms of informing the land owners and gauging their reaction the district, there is still not enough information provided to assure that the proposed water service rates to be paid are reasonable and that the service to be provided is adequate. 

 

As the County’s Special District Review Team has indicated before, it is very apparent that the proponent of this district, Prospect Mountain Water Company, is no longer enthusiastic about running and operating a water company. New federal regulations and the scrutiny of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) have made the operation more difficult and expensive. Additionally, the owners are looking for an “exit strategy.” The company can continue to exist and serve as it has in the past with two issues: the renewal of the Bureau of Reclamation tap/connection is in doubt; and, the PUC has indicated that the rates should reflect a “profit.” The two of these issues coupled together with the background of the company suggest that a district of some form is appropriate to assure continued service to the land owners in this area. 

 

Stepping back from the statutory criteria for a moment, it is clear that irrespective of the form of governance to be established, if the pipes are bad they will need to be replaced, resulting in increased costs to rate payers or customers. The same premise can be applied to the additionally identified issues of water quality and maintenance; however, the special district statues do require the Board of County Commissioners to make a finding with respect to the financial viability of the proposal, so that when confronted with a decision on the vote, the electors can make an informed decision. 

 

Staff does not believe that limited further information will be forthcoming from the applicant to pass the water supply on to either a buyer of the company or the district, if formed. The current proposal appears to pass on the costs associated with the needed and identified inquiries/studies regarding system function and health to the acquiring entity.

 

The criteria for approval, in summary, requires the Board of County Commissioners to find there is a need that no other entity can serve, the service will be economic, and the service can be economic within the area to be served. The prior analysis presented to the Larimer County Planning Commission and to the Board of County Commissioners, in February, reveals that the district service plan, with certain conditions, can meet the requirements of the Special District Resolution.

 

1.   The Special District Review Team has determined that the plan does meet the minimum requirements of state statute regarding the formation of a new special district.

 

2.   The team’s analysis continues to reveal potentially significant issues with the formation of this district related to cost, maintenance, and financial feasibility. 

 

Specifically, the Special District Review Team finds that the plan continues to lack the detailed information on the issues of supply and ownership of water, the status and condition of the systems to be transferred, and the final rate structure. Therefore certain conditions addressing these apparent issues with the information are necessary if the district is to receive approval from the Board of County Commissioners. 

 

Any conditional approval of the Board of County Commissioners, when there are conditions which require revisions or modifications to the Service Plan, requires that the conditions be fully satisfied, i.e. submission and a review of the revised documents, prior to the execution of a resolution of approval by the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Based upon the discussion above, the new information provided since the Larimer County Planning Commission meeting and understanding the plans of the owners, the Special District Review Team believes that it can only recommend the approval of the service plan with the following conditions:

 

1.    There shall be no bonded indebtedness.

 

2.    Any rate increase beyond that necessary to service the loans and normal operating costs shall be considered a material modification of the Service Plan requiring further review.

 

3.    The service plan shall be modified to indicate the commitments, with respect to the advance by the company to the district of up to $20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars), to complete an engineering investigation and water quality analysis of the existing system. This shall also reflect the selection of the engineering firm to conduct said analysis shall be at the discretion of the district board with recommendations form the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment. 

 

4.    The service plan shall be modified to reflect the results of the studies completed.  If there are repairs, replacements or modifications to be made to the system(s), a cost estimate shall be provided, and the proposed low interest government loan shall be modified to include those costs. If the identified costs and loan payment amounts result in a service monthly rate increase of more than 15% over those in the current financial projections for either service method, there will be a material modification to the service plan.    

 

5.    The service plan and accompanying documents shall be modified to reflect that water service to the district shall be provided either through the establishment of a long term service contract with the Town of Estes Park for connection to the Town system for the delivery of bulk treated water; or, to allow for the sale of the treatment plant and appurtenances and the long term, 10-year, lease of CBT water to the district

 

6.         The service plan shall be further modified to insure that all properties not currently served may obtain service from the district and that the district shall adopt appropriate rules regarding connection to the district system.

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing the applicant, and Roger Clark, attorney for Prospect Mountain Water Company, addressed the Board. Mr. Clark stated that since the last hearing, Prospect Mountain Water Company held a meeting on April 10, 2009, to address all questions and concerns for individuals within the proposed district. The water company also conducted a survey of residents about whether they would prefer the proposed district receive water from the Bureau of Land Management or from the Town of Estes Park. Mr. Clark stated most of the survey respondents favored a purchase of bulk water from the town.

 

Mr. Clark also stated that the water company had not conducted the studies requested by the Board at the February 2009 hearing; however, the water company is willing to advance up to $20,000 to the proposed district to conduct the study.

 

Commissioner Rennels raised questions about the $20,000 and voiced her displeasure with the company for not conducting the study prior to today’s hearing, as requested.

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing to public comment. Frank Huffman, Bob Lawrence, and John Heron addressed the Board on behalf of Prospect Mountain Water Company. All spoke highly of the offer from the water company and the recent water quality standards study conducted by the State of Colorado Health Department.  

 

Austin Condon, Greg Glasgow, Patti Glasgow, Jerry Elley, Ken Lindeman, Joella Turner, and Dave Britton, all residents within the proposed district, addressed the Board in opposition to formation of the district. All cited distrust in Prospect Mountain Water Company, poor water quality, and uncertainty about the physical state of the system. Many argued that the state’s water quality findings are misleading because water was collected from the treatment plant for testing, not from individual homes. Residents informed the Board that after water leaves the treatment plat it is pumped uphill to a holding tank and then to homes. By the time the water reaches individual homes, it is discolored, cloudy, and contains high levels of sediment.

 

Residents also stated that they would not vote to form a district until an unbiased survey of the entire system was conducted and results made public. Because of their distrust of the company and their experience with poor water quality, most residents believe components of the system may require repair or replacement.

 

Mr. Clark readdressed the Board and stated that if formation of a district were approved, and survey results were unfavorable, members of the district would not be required to purchase the water system from the company.   

 

Mr. Huffman readdressed the Board and stated that no one has called him with complaints about poor water quality and he was unaware of any problems until the first hearing in April 2009.

 

Chair Rennels closed public comment and opened the hearing to Commissioner discussion. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was deeply concerned about the company’s unwillingness to conduct the requested survey of the system; and because no survey was conducted, the Board cannot adequately evaluate the assets of the company.

 

Chair Rennels cited the county’s duty to ensure that their approval of a district is not misconstrued as approval of the system. She voiced concern that the Board’s responsibility to protect and serve the public would not be met if a district were approved.

 

Commissioner Donnelly agreed and voiced concern with the company’s failure to fulfill their obligation to provide clean water and the implications of that failure on the trust of the residents. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Prospect Mountain Water District Service Plan, file #08-G0156.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2009

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were:  Neil Gluckman, Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Laurel Kubin and Alison Stove, Extension Office; Lorenda Volkner, Department of Human Services; Marc Engemoen, Department of Public Works; Linda Connors, Jeannine Haag, and George Haas, County Attorney’s Office; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.         PUBLIC COMMENT:  There was no public comment today.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEKS OF JUNE 29, 2009, AND JULY 6, 2009:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the weeks of June 29, 2009, and July 6, 2009.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.         REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 20, 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 Consent Agenda, as published, for July 14, 2009.

 

PETITIONS FOR ABATEMENT:   As proposed by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement were presented for approval:  Reid, Judith A.; Town & Country Investors LLC; Poudre Valley Radiation; and Leo N. Bradley

 

As proposed by the County Assessor, the following Petitions for Abatement were presented for denial:  Cindy S. Shultz; Rodney A. & Kimberle L. Davis; Centerra Lifestyle Center LLC; and Shannon Fancher.

 

07142009A001           INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE NORTHERN COLORADO DRUG TASK FORCE BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, CITY OF LOVELAND, TOWN OF WINDSOR, TOWN OF ESTES PARK, TOWN OF BERTHOUD, AND THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

 

07142009A002           DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, STATE OF COLORADO, AND DON KEHN CONSTRUCTION INC.

 

07142009A003           INTERIM INGERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE BERTHOUD COUMMUNITY LIBRARY DISTRICT – TOWN OF BERTHOUD

 

07142009A004           PARTNER AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF COLORADO, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS – GRANT FOR THE ACQUISITION & INSTALLATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT EQUIPMENT FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, FORT COLLINS REGIONAL LIBRARY DISTRICT, AND THE FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY

 

07142009R001           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL – OWASSA SUBDIVISION AMENDED PLAT, LOT 1, BLOCK 31

 

07142009R002           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL – THOMPSON LAKESIDE LOTS 4 & 5

 

MISCELLANEOUS:   Letter of Support for a Conservation Fund Grant Application to Forest Legacy Program

 

LIQUOR LICENSE:  Canyon Grill – Hotel and Restaurant – Fort Collins

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.         UPDATE ON EXTENSION HORTICULTURE PROGRAM :  Ms. Stoven provided the Board with an extensive overview of the Larimer County Extension Horticulture Program including the Farmer’s Market and the Master Gardener Program. Ms. Stoven stated that although attendance at the weekly Farmer’s Market seems to be down, sales are still comparable to last year. Also, the county has just finished training 16 new master gardeners. 

 

6.         PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DIRECTOR RECRUITMENT PROFILE AND PROPOSED RECRUITMENT PROCESS:  Ms. Volkner and Mr. Lancaster detailed their strategy and timeline for the process of hiring a new Planning and Building Services Director to replace Larry Timm, who will retire in August 2009. This process will include the creation of a position profile, advertisement of the position, multiple interviews, and background verification. Interested candidates must apply to the Larimer County Human Resources Department by August 31, 2009.

 

7.         COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  There were no worksession items this week.

 

8.         COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board detailed their activities during the previous week.

 

9.         LEGAL MATTERS:  Ms. Connors informed the Board that four of the liquor licenses issued by Larimer County have had violations resulting in a suspension of the license for a 24-hour period. The violation committed by each license holder was selling alcohol to an individual under the age of 21 years. The license holders and the date of their suspensions are as follows:

 

1.         Del Sol, doing business as Eloy’s – 4:00 p.m. July 17, 2009, to 4:00 p.m. July 18, 2009.

2.         Hotel Gold Crown Fort Collins LLC, doing business as Blue Creek Bar – 5:00 p.m. July 17, 2009, to 5:00 p.m. July 18, 2009.

3.         Schrader Oil Company, doing business as Schrader Country Store #440 – 5:00 p.m. July 17, 2009, to 5:00 p.m. July 18, 2009.

4.         Swing Station LLC, doing business as Swing Station – 5:00 p.m. July 24, 2009, to 5:00 p.m. July 25, 2009.

 

The Board acknowledged and accepted these suspensions.

 

Ms. Haag and Ms. Hoffman addressed the Board and proposed amendments to paragraph 23C of the Hidden Valley Development Agreement to change the deadline for improvements to July 28, 2012. The amendments are proposed by staff because the deadline currently listed in the agreement is no longer applicable.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commission Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to paragraph 23C of the Hidden Valley Development Agreement to change the deadline for improvements to July 28, 2012.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 Mr. Haas requested the Board go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing real estate transactions, subject to CRS 24-6-402(4)(a) and to discuss negotiations, subject to CRS 24-6-402 (4)(e) with no motion to be made following either session.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing real estate transactions, subject to CRS 24-6-402(4)(a) and to discuss negotiations, subject to CRS 24-6-402 (4)(e).

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

                        KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

 

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

 

­­­______________________________________

Melissa E. Lohry, Deputy Clerk


 

 

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