> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 11/02/09  

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, November 2, 2009

 

 

LAND USE

 

The Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner.  Chair Rennels presided, and Commissioners Johnson and Donnelly were present.  Also present were:  Michael Whitely and Sean Wheeler, Planning Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Jeff Goodell, Engineering Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the Land Use Code and County Budget.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.

 

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

 

1.  LEE/SUSSEX MINOR SPECIAL REVIEW, FILE #09-Z1758:    This is a request to allow a detached accessory living  area on the property located east of Filter Plant Road approximately 140 feet north of County  Road .  The property currently contains a single-family home that was constructed in 1940 and a 1973 mobile home on the property.  The property owners would like to remove the mobile home, build a new principal residence and retain the existing single-family home as an Accessory Living Area.  The new residence will be approximately 2,665 square feet and the existing home constructed in 1940 is 576 square feet. 

 

Mr. & Mrs. Sussex are elderly and they currently reside in the mobile home on the property. Their caretakers reside in the 1940 home.  Construction of the new home will allow their daughter, Ms. Lee, to live in the new home with her parents.  Approval of the proposed Minor Special Review would allow for the retention of the existing home on the property for occupancy by the caretakers.

 

The Building Department has issued a building permit for construction of the new 2,665 square foot home with the following conditions:  Prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the new primary residence, or within 3 months after the temporary certificate of occupancy has been issued, the existing mobile home shall be removed from the property and:  The Minor Special Review for the conversion of the existing single-family home built in 1940 to an accessory living area must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners; or a Change of Occupancy permit must be issued for the conversion of the home to a storage building; or

The existing single-family home must be removed from the property.

 

The property is south of the Pleasant Valley Lake Canal Company Ditch.  The ditch company has indicated no concerns with the proposal as long as the new home does not encroach into a 15-foot wide easement along the northern property line.  The new home has a 25-foot setback from the northern property line and will not encroach into the ditch company’s easement.

 

Planning Staff support the Minor Special Review as described in this report.  There are no remaining Planning Department concerns with this request.

 

Accessory Living Areas are intended to allow property owners full use of their property while maintaining the integrity and character of residential neighborhoods.  To meet these goals, accessory uses and buildings must be erected and used only for purposes that are clearly secondary and incidental to the principal use of the property.  The Development Services Team concludes this request meets the requirements of the Land Use Code and supports the proposed Minor Special Review.

 

The Development Services Team finds that:

 

1.   The proposed use is compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and in harmony with the neighborhood.

 

2.   The proposed use is consistent with the County Master Plan.

 

3.   There proposal can and will comply with the requirements of the Land Use Code.

 

4.   The proposed use is not anticipated to have any impacts on other property.

 

5.   The recommendations of referral agencies have been considered.

 

6.  The applicant has demonstrated that this project can meeting the criteria listed in Section 4.3.10.F.2 (Accessory living areas in detached buildings).

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Lee/Sussex Minor Special Review, File #09-Z1758, subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.         The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Lee-Sussex Minor Special Review, File #09-Z1758, except as modified by the conditions of approval or agreement of the County and applicant.  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Lee-Sussex Minor Special Review.

 

2.         This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.  In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval, or fails to use the property consistent with the approved Minor Special Review, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Minor Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Minor Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Minor Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.  County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Minor Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Minor Special Review approval.

 

3.         The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

 

4.   The owner is responsible for obtaining all required building permits for the new residence.   All applicable fees, including permit fees shall apply to this use. 

 

5.   Per Section 4.3.10.F.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, the habitable space of the current structure shall not exceed to 40 percent of the square footage in the single-family dwelling or 800 square feet whichever is less.

 

6.   The single-family character of the property must be maintained.  The entrance(s) to the accessory living area must not be visible from any road.

 

7.   The accessory living area is to be used solely for guests of the occupants of the single-family dwelling or those providing a service on site in exchange for their residency.

 

8.   The accessory living area must not be rented or leased separately from the single-family dwelling.

 

9.   This Minor Special Review approval will automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

 

10.   Prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the new primary residence or within 3 months after the temporary certificate of occupancy has been issued, the existing mobile home shall be removed from the property.

 

2.  NEUTZE MINOR LAND DIVISION, FILE #09-S2909:   This is a request to for a Minor Land Division (MLD) on a 53.33-acre site.  The subject property is located on the west side of County Road 17 (N. Shields Ave.) southwest of the Culver Reservoir.  There are two existing single-family residential uses on the site.  One structure was first built in 1900 (and remodeled in 1998) and the other was built in 1980 according to records in the County Accessor’s office.  Approval of the request will create two lots being 17.91 acres in size for Lot 1, and 35.41 acres in size for Lot 2.  The subject property is not part of a previous Subdivision or Minor Land Division. 

 

The request meets the review criterion for the Minor Land Division process and thus approval is warranted.  None of the reviewing agencies indicated any objections to the request in their comments provided to Planning Staff.  The utility companies did not object to the request, but note that existing easements must be relocated and shown on the Final MLD Plat.  The County Engineering Department also notes that additional right-of-way is required for a total of 50-feet, instead of the 30-feet as shown on the Preliminary Plat.  Other minor technical changes are required for the Final Plat, as outlined in the comments provided by Dale Greer, also with the County Engineering Department.  Based on this assessment, Staff supports approval of the Neutze Minor Land Division.

 

The Development Services Team finds:

 

1.    The property is not part of an approved or recorded Subdivision, Exemption, Minor Residential Development or Minor Land Division Plat.

 

2.    The newly created parcels meet and exceed the minimum lot size required by the RE-Rural Estate zone district, and the minimum access standards required by the County Engineer.

 

3.    Approval of the Minor Land Division will not result in impacts greater than those from existing uses.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Neutze Minor Land Division, File #09-S2909, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the Chairperson 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 May 5, 2010 or this approval shall be null and void.

 

2.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the application shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department in comments dated September 29, 2009.

 

3.   Include the Right of Way Dedications as noted in the comments from the Engineering Department in their October 2, 2009 staff memo.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Consent Agenda, as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Lafferty noted that both items 3 and 4 on the agenda are directly related, and would be considered concurrently.

 

3.  ALLEN/WYANT APPEAL, FILE #09-G0179:  This is a request for an appeal to Section 5.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to not require an application through the Planned Land Division/Planned Development process to recognize the division of a platted lot within the East Mulberry Subdivision. 

 

Based upon an analysis of the property in question it is evident that Lot 11 of the replat of Lots 11-16 of the East Mulberry Subdivision was divided (by deed) without County Commissioner review and approval sometime in 1972.  This action to divide the property (by deed) was inconsistent with the 1968 Subdivision Regulations for the County, which required that any existing lots within a existing subdivision that were being further subdivided would require a subdivision application for review and approval by the County Commissioners.

 

Since the division of the lot in 1972, one of the lots has been developed and functioning as a business.  The development of the site did receive all the required permits for the building construction without any questions regarding the appropriateness of the past lot division.  As such the property owners have always assumed that they had separate legal lots.

 

While the Code is clear that the further division of platted lots requires approval through an appropriate subdivision process, the Development Services Team concurs with the applicant that lot division in this instance was overlooked by the County when permits were applied for and thus the owners would presume that they had legal lots.  Additionally, the Development Services Team believes that existing improvements such as roads and infrastructure already exist in the area and applying a full subdivision process to recognize the division would be excessive.  Therefore, the Development Services Team will recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the applicants request to utilize the Amended plat process to formally recognize these lots.  Furthermore, when development or expansion occurs on either of the lots Site Plan Review will be required, which will ensure that the standards of the Code are fully complied with.

 

The Development Services Team finds:

 

A.  The Development Services Team finds that the approval of the Allen/Wyant appeal will not subvert the purpose of the standards or requirements.

B.  The Development Services Team finds that the approval of the Allen/Wyant appeal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or property values in the neighborhood.

C.  The Development Services Team finds that the approval of the Allen/Wyant appeal will not result in increased costs to the general public.

D.  The Development Services Team finds that the approval of the Allen/Wyant appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Code.

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Allen/Wyant Appeal, File # 09-G0179, subject to the following condition(s):

 

1.   The property owner(s) shall receive review and approval of an Amended plat formally documenting the division of Lot 11of the replat of Lots 11-16 of the East mulberry Subdivision.

 

 

4.   EAST MULBERRY SUBDIVISION LOT 11 AMENDED PLAT, FILE #09-S2908:   This is a request for an Amended Plat to acknowledge and existing lot division that did not receive review and approval by the County Commissioners.  The division was done by deed in 1972 and has existed as two lots since.  The Alllen/Wyant appeal considered by the County Commissioners on today’s agenda will affect the outcome of this request as such:

 

A)   If the appeal was granted then this application will be considered for approval based upon the information contained herein, or

B)   If the appeal was denied then this application should be denied as well.

 

The amended plat being proposed will not affect any existing conditions on the lots as they currently exist.

The Development Services Team recommends Approval of the Amended Plat of lot 11 of the Replat of Lots 11-16 of the East Mulberry Subdivision, File # 09-S2908, subject to the following condition(s) 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 April 7, 2010, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

  1.  The Amended Plat shall include dedication of right-of-way for Link Lane and Olive Court per the referral comments from the Larimer County Engineering Department Dated October 6, 2009, and sign by Jeff Goodell.

 

Mr. Lafferty displayed an aerial photo of the properties and explained that the proposal is to formally acknowledge a historical split that was created without review back in the early 1970’s.  Mr. Lafferty stated that in this case the Planning Department agreed that it be sensible to accept an amended plat in lieu of a Planned Land Division. 

 

Chair Rennels opened up the hearing to the applicant and Patricia Crutch, with Northstar Design, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated they were in full agreement with the Planning Department’s recommendation.

 

There was no public comment.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Allen/Wyant Appeal, File # 09-G0179, subject to the condition(s) as outlined above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly move I move that the Board of County Commissioners Approve the Amended Plat of lot 11 of the Replat of Lots 11-16 of the East Mulberry Subdivision, File # 09-S2908, subject to the following condition(s) outlined above and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature.

 

M O T I O N carried 3-0.

 

The meeting recessed at 3:10 p.m.

 

 

LAND USE

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Jill Bennett, Principal Planner.  Chair Rennels presided, Commissioner Johnson, and Commissioner Donnelly were present.  Also present were: Doug Ryan, Health Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; and Tamara Slusher, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Rennels opened the meeting and asked for public comment on the Land Use Code and County Budget.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.

 

1.         LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING 1041, FILE #09-CA0100:  This is a request to amend Section 14 of the adopted Land Use Code as recommended by the Planning Commission.

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission discussed the proposed designation of domestic water and sewer transmission pipelines as Matters of State Interest at their October 16, 2009 hearing.  The Commission reviewed the written comments and testimony of water and sewer service providers and concerned citizens. The minutes of that meeting are included in this report.  After discussion, the Planning Commission supported the proposed language for the 1041 designation.

 

One technical issue was raised during the discussion when a service provider questioned whether the “24 inch or larger diameter pipelines” referred to inside or outside pipe diameter.   Discussion with County Engineering and Environmental Health staff have confirmed that “pipeline diameter” would refer to inside pipe diameter.  Since this is an industry standard of description, we do not believe that clarifying language is necessary in the 1041 designation; however, it could easily be added.

 

Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #09-CA0100, be approved as follows:

 

14.4. Designated Matters of State Interest.

 

Add the following Section:

 

J.  Siting and development of new or extended domestic water or sewer transmission lines which use 24 inch or larger diameter pipelines or two or more pipelines of any size which are parallel to and located within 100 feet of one another and have a total diameter equal to or greater than 24 inches.  Domestic water transmission lines include those used to transport both raw and treated water.  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.

 

Ms. Bennett began the discussion by detailing the history behind 1041 regulations and the differences when compared to the location and extent procedures currently practiced.  Staff explained that 1041 regulations were designed to provide the Board of County Commissioners with an opportunity to oversee matters that affect the Larimer County Master Plan. Ms. Bennett also discussed changes such as application fees, regulatory oversight, and public involvement, and possible exemption for projects that have little to no impact on the surrounding community. 

 

Chair Rennels opened public comment with Fred Walker, general manager of Boxelder Sanitation District. Mr. Walker addressed the Board on behalf of several local water and sanitation districts and expressed opposition of the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code.  Mr. Walker stated that the existing regulations are sufficient but that the organizations that he spoke on behalf of would be in favor of forming a task force to address community and environmental concerns for projects that may have adverse impacts on landowners and the County in general.

 

Connie O’Neill and Don Taranto addressed the Board in opposition of the proposed amendments also stating that the current regulation is sufficient and speaking in favor of the proposed task force to offer technical expertise on upcoming projects as well as promoting a collaborative effort between the entities, the County, and the public.

 

Mary Humstone, James Pritchett, Gina Janett, Ed Stoner, Greg Spear, John Carr, Rose Brinks, Nick Komar, Margaret Hyde, Martha Coleman, and George Burnette addressed the Board in support of the proposed Land Use Code amendments to adopt 1041 regulations.  Many of the individuals are affected owners of the ongoing Greeley Pipeline project and sited examples of how the lack of public involvement has adversely affected their land, the environment, and the Larimer County Master Plan. 

 

Jim Hayward, the general manager of the Little Thompson Water District requested clarification on how the new 1041 regulations would affect the ongoing Greeley Pipeline project.  Ms. Haag stated that there are exceptions in certain situations but that generally newly enacted resolutions would not be retroactive.  However, this decision would be made by the courts and not by the Board.

 

Chair Rennels closed public comment and opened the topic for Commissioner discussion.

 

Discussion ensued amongst the Board regarding this topic.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to Section 14 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, File #09-CA0100.

 

Motion failed 1-2. Chair Rennels and Commissioner Donnelly dissenting.

 

The Board, Ms. Bennett, and Ms. Haag further discussed tabling this item until more information can be gathered.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the Amendments to Section 14 of the Larimer County Land Use, File #09-CA0100, until December 21, 2009, at 6:30 p.m.

 

Motion carried 2-1.  Commissioner Johnson dissenting.

 

There being no further business the hearing adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

 

The Board of County Commissioners met with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Rennels presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson were present. Also present were:  Vicki Lutz, Executive Director/Crossroads Safehouse; Dr. Adrienne LeBailly, Health Department; John Gamlin, Human Resources; Lorrie Lopez, Finance; Russ Legg, Jill Bennett and Candace Phippin; Planning; Mark Peterson, Engineering; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; and Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk.

 

1.  PUBLIC COMMENT – BOXELDER BASIN REGIONAL STORMWATER AUTHORITY:  Rick Seaworth, of the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (BBRSA), approached the Board to explain his perspective that his responsibility within the BBRSA is to oversee the maintenance of the areas within the boundaries of the BBRSA, as needed to properly direct the storm water flow.  He further stated that he does not believe he or the BBRSA Board has the authority to modify the boundaries of the BBRSA.  He indicated that some property owners within the BBRSA have expressed desire to modify the boundaries and that his response to their requests has been to state that the boundaries were originally setup by the founding entities (Larimer County, City of Fort Collins and Town of Wellington) and can only be modified by those entities.  The concerned property owners have become increasingly frustrated with this perspective and some are threatening legal action.

 

Mr. Lancaster invited Mark Peterson to the meeting.  Mr. Seaworth expressed his appreciation for Mr. Peterson’s commitment to a quality working relationship, even when dealing with frustrating situations.

 

Chair Rennels explained that, when the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the BBRSA was originally formed, it was generally agreed that there should be a “waiver” process to allow for individual properties to be waivered out of the BBRSA until such time as the boundaries themselves are reconsidered and/or changed by the founding entities.  The process of requesting a waiver would require data supporting any assertions that water no longer flows from the property into the Boxelder Creek.  Chair Rennels asked Mr. Seaworth if the BBRSA Board had, as yet, considered any waivers that have been filed.  Mr. Seaworth stated that the BBRSA Board had not been given any waivers to consider.  Chair Rennels expressed concern that there may be a disconnect between the BBRSA Manager and the BBRSA Board.  She stated that it would be the BBRSA Manager’s responsibility to deal with the questions posed by property owners within the BBRSA, to receive their waiver requests, and to submit them to the BBRSA Board for consideration.

 

Chair Rennels further explained that the waiver process was intended to keep the forming entities from having to consider each waiver request as it occurs – rather the BBRSA Board would act on the individual waiver requests; and when general flow changes created a significant enough change, the BBRSA Board would then approach the forming entities with recommendations regarding more formal modifications to the BBRSA boundaries.

 

Mr. Seaworth expressed concern that he didn’t want the BBRSA Manager to tell property owners that they can be waivered out, because their share of the costs would then be added to the costs paid by all of the other property owners within the BBRSA.  Commissioners Johnson and Rennels expressed concern that, under these conditions, perhaps legitimate concerns of affected property owners may not get heard.  Commissioner Johnson also expressed concern that the waiver process may be cost-prohibitive for the affected property owners to pursue.

 

Mr. Peterson stated that some of the property owner concerns had been handled on an administrative level, based on simple facts (i.e., the parcel is located in the BBRSA, but the house isn’t, so the homeowner wouldn’t have a fee).  He further stated that some mapping resources are available to the property owners and such information can be helpful as they pursue the waiver process.  Mr. Peterson explained that the BBRSA boundaries are based on a topographic delineation of the basin boundary, with no consideration given to property boundaries (water flows without consideration of property boundaries).

 

Chair Rennels stated that she would like to get input from the County Attorney regarding the authority of the BBRSA Board, the founding entities, etc. and will pursue these answers during Legal Matters later in the meeting.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 26, 2009:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of October 26, 2009.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 9, 2009:

 

Frank Lancaster reviewed the upcoming schedule with the Board.

 

4.  CONSENT AGENDA:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda for November 3, 2009, as outlined below:

 

1132009A001             AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE SUPPORT STAFF & RESPITE SERVICES BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE LARIMER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, AND LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH

 

11032009A002           AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 17, 2007 BETWEEN LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO i-CUBED AND PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY

 

11032009R001           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTIONS APPROVING THE K&D CONCRETE M INOR SPECIAL REVIEW

 

11032009R002           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRACEY EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING RESIDENCE

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  UPDATE ON CROSSROADS SAFE HOUSE:  Vicki Lutz, Executive Director of the Crossroads Safe House, approached the Board to seek a partnership with the County in opening a new safe house in the former Columbine East Nursing Home Building.  She explained that overcrowding in their current facility is a very real problem that has been at critical mass for some time.  She shared statistics regarding the need for such a facility in the community.  Ms. Lutz then outlined the plans for the safe house; the improved support it will provide for men, women and children affected by domestic violence; and the progress made on the project thus far.  The new location will provide for a children’s play area, a men’s wing, quarantine quarters and on-site pet accommodations.

 

Another special feature of this project is that it will be the first “green” safe-house in the United States.  She suggested that there will be meeting space within the building that perhaps others will utilize for business purposes from time to time, increasing awareness within the community.

 

Ms. Lutz explained that Crossroads is a small agency that primarily seeks out federal funding.  However, for a project such as this one, matching funds are also required in order to access some of the grant funds.  Currently Crossroads has more than twenty partners throughout Northern Colorado, and stated that this project will create ten new jobs for the area as well. The project is estimated to cost $5.4 million, with $2.5 million of that being for the cost of the building.  Thus far $1 million has been raised, and $1.7 million is still needed.  Another $1.4 million is being pursued in the way of Gates and other national foundation grants.

 

Ms. Lutz stated that she has already requested $500,000 from the City of Fort Collins, and that she is requesting $300,000 from Larimer County.  When asked how those request amounts were arrived at, she indicated that they were based on population figures.  When asked about the history of county funding for Crossroads, Ms. Lutz indicated that the county last provided funding in the amount of $25,000 back in 2003 (the year before she arrived), but that her experience in other areas of the country has been that county governments typically provide significant financial support for such service providers.

 

Chair Rennels expressed appreciation for the services provided by Crossroads and suggested that partnering with Larimer County Human Services may be helpful as well.  Ms. Lutz indicated that the two do work very closely as client needs arise.  Chair Rennels asked Ms. Lutz to suggest a list of items needed by Crossroads, so that, perhaps, collection efforts could be pursued.  She stated that the county budget is already very tight, but that the Board would consider the request.

 

The Board commended Crossroads for the important and much needed services they are providing within the community.

 

6.  TEMPORARY WAIVER OF HUMAN RESOURCE POLICY AND PROCEDURE 331.6D.V.H.2.g:  John Gamlin and Adrienne LeBailly, approached the Board.  Mr. Gamlin explained that this has been an unusually early and busy flu season, due to the novel H1N1 (Swine) Influenza.  Many employees have already been out of work due to flu-like symptoms.  To avoid further spread of this illness, the Public Health Administrator asks that employees who are ill remain at home and not enter the workplace until their symptoms have subsided and they have been free of fever for at least 24 hours. 

 

Mr. Gamlin further explained that, because some employees do not have sufficient leave balances to maintain a paid status during the absence, the Public Health Administrator is concerned that they will come to work and potentially spread the virus throughout the workplace.  Therefore, the Public Health Administrator is asking that the above policy be temporarily waived for employees who themselves are experiencing flu-like symptoms or who must remain home to care for covered family member(s) during this temporary period.

 

Due to this unprecedented medical situation, the Public Health Administrator is requesting a temporary waiver of policy, which will be limited to employees experiencing flu-like symptoms under the following circumstances:

 

a)   The employee must be working in a classification that is eligible for leave accruals.

b)   The eligible employee must have exhausted all available paid leave (including vacation, sick, comp, holiday, etc.).

c)   Employees meeting the requirements of a) and b) above would be eligible for up to 40 hours of advanced sick leave during this declared medical situation (hours will be pro-rated for less than full-time employees in accordance with HR Policy and Procedure 331.6D.V.H.1.a).

d)   As the employee who has been granted advanced sick leave accrues sick leave, the advanced sick leave amount owed will be reduced by the accrued amount.  Employees will not have a positive sick leave balance until all advanced sick leave has been repaid.

e)   The Appointing Authority or designee will authorize the advanced sick leave either through confirmation from a medical  provider or using the attached Personal Attestation form.*

f)   Advanced sick leave will be shown on the time sheet as “Sick Leave” and the employee or supervisor will note in the comments section that such leave was advanced.  The medical certification or personal attestation will be attached to the time sheet.

 

*Because many doctors’ offices are reporting that they are having difficulty seeing all patients reporting flu-like symptoms, an alternative form of verification is being provided.  This form requires an employee to attest to the fact that he or she (or a covered family member) was ill with flu-like symptoms and was either directed by a healthcare provider or followed public health guidance to remain at home.  Departments/offices are encouraged to accept this verification as a way to meet their needs without overloading doctors’ offices and clinics.

 

Dr. LeBailly explained that the CDC is recommending more flexibility in HR plans during this pandemic period.  She stated that this really doesn’t create an additional benefit, since the employee has to repay the advanced sick leave as it is accrued.

 

Commissioner Johnson asked how long it would take a staff member to accrue 40 hours of sick leave.  Mr. Gamlin explained that it would take six months.  Commissioner Johnson asked what happens if an employee became sick during that repayment period.  Mr. Gamlin explained that available vacation leave would have to be utilized, or the employee would fall into a Leave Without Pay situation.

 

Mr. Gamlin explained that this policy waiver would be in effect until March 1, 2010, unless the Public Health Administrator, because of changes in the public health situation, makes a request to modify the date.

 

 M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the temporary waiver of Human Resource Policy and Procedure 331.6D.V.H.2.g until March 1, 2010.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

7.  SECOND READING OF THE TRAFFIC CODE ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION AND CERTIFICATE; UPDATING SURCHARGE AND FINE SCHEDULE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Traffic Code Ordinance, Resolution and Certificate.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

11032009O001           ORDINANCE FOR THE REGULATION OF TRAFFIC BY THE COUNTY OF LARIMER, COLORADO; UPDATING SURCHARGE AND FINE SCHEDULE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH

 

8.  SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN GREEN ACRES SUBDIVISION:   Lorrie Lopez addressed the Board and explained that on December 8, 1998, an ordinance was created for the imposition and collection of assessments in Green Acres Subdivision.  All assessments have been collected; therefore, an ordinance is required to repeal this invoice and release the lien on the properties.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Ordinance Repealing Ordinance for the Imposition and Collection of Assessments in Green Acres Subdivision.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

11032009O002           ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN GREEN ACRES SUBDIVISION

 

9.  COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  Mr. Lancaster and the Board briefly discussed changes to the schedule for Board of County Commissioner Admin Matters Meetings.  It was agreed that, beginning January 1, 2010, Admin Matters Meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m., whether there is public comment or not.  If there is public comment, it will be taken at the start of the meetings and will not be allowed to last longer than 30 minutes.

 

Chair Rennels presented Mr. Lancaster with a plaque from the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) in honor of his 30-year contribution to the advancement of local government, and the Board commended Mr. Lancaster for his many years of service to the community.

 

Chair Rennels shared an invitation received by the Board to attend the “Dinner of Champions” event in Estes Park honoring Chad and Troy McWhinney.  Unfortunately, the Board already has other commitments for that meeting date and will not be able to attend.  Chair Rennels asked that a letter of regret (that they cannot attend) and congratulations be sent to the McWhinney’s.

 

The Commissioners asked Russ Legg and Jill Bennett from the Planning Department to join the meeting to discuss what they anticipate will be accomplished during the extension period provided during the previous evening’s Land Use Hearing for the 1041 Regulations for Domestic Water and Sewer Transmission Pipelines.  Chair Rennels asked Mr. Legg and Ms. Bennett what the work plan (conversations, etc.) will look like during the next six weeks and what they expect the outcome to be.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the 24” pipe size for the project and what that pipe size is based on, the level of state-wide interest (official or unofficial) in the project, and the need to ensure that  decisions made on this project (local waiver process, etc.) don’t result in unintended consequences for other entities down the road. 

 

Chair Rennels requested that those with concerns about the waiver process be asked to clearly define what concerns them, so those issues can be specifically addressed.  She went further to say that she would like to see the waiver process well defined and more specific (as needed to create a level of understanding and comfort for the interested parties) by the end of the six-week extension period.  Brief discussion ensued regarding potential meeting scheduling, who will be invited to participate, how they will be contacted, and the significant amount of work/communication that will need to take place during the extension period.  Chair Rennels stated that she sees the December 21st hearing as a final hearing for this issue, and she asked that the Commissioners be given status reports on this matter between now and the December 21st hearing.

 

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

 

9.  LEGAL MATTERS: 

 

GURTLER PROPERTY CLEANUP:  Jeanine Haag and Candace Phippen approached the Board to discuss the Gurtler property cleanup.  As directed, the Planning Department moved forward to have the property cleaned up.  In doing so, they took bids, hired a contractor, etc.  When the contractor arrived on the agreed-upon date to proceed with the cleanup, he found that Mr. Gurtler had already cleaned up the property.  The contractor has since sent an invoice to Larimer County in the amount of $460 for time and expenses to cover site visits the bid on clean-up of the property.

 

Conversation ensued regarding the fact that Larimer County does not reimburse contractors for costs associated with the bidding process.  Chair Rennels expressed concern regarding the fact that contractors who find themselves in a position like the one described here (where they are set to do the work and get there to find it has already been done) are put in a somewhat unfair position, as they have already committed heavy equipment to the project (and have perhaps subcontracted to do so).  She further stated that the possibility of this happening may deter reputable contractors from bidding county jobs, leaving the county with less desirable contactors to choose from. 

 

It was generally agreed that, in the future, there should be some compensation allowed in the agreement for such circumstances and that the property owner should be made aware that they will be responsible for reimbursing the county for any such costs.

 

Discussion ensued regarding this particular contractor request, the general contract language, and the fact that the contractor could have bid the project with a “minimum” compensation amount in case of circumstances such as this.  Ms. Phippen explained that changes in the scope of the project after the original request for bid required that the contractor revisit the site and resulted in the bid amount being decreased by $7000. 

 

All agreed that the contractor should generally not be compensation for bidding expenses.  After some discussion, however, it was agreed that, under these unique circumstances, the contractor should receive some minimal compensation.  Ms. Phippen was instructed to reimburse the contractor for half the invoice amount, or $230.  Mr. Lancaster indicated that the payment should come from the general fund, as would the cleanup charges (had they been necessary).

 

Commissioner Johnson requested that photos be taken of the cleaned-up property, in case they are needed in the future.

 

BOXELDER BASIN REGIONAL STORMWATER AUTHORITY :  Chair Rennels asked Ms. Haag to explain the authority of the BBRSA Board, per the conversation which took place earlier in the meeting during Public Comment. 

 

Ms. Haag explained that the BBRSA Board does not have the authority to change the boundaries or take people out of the IGA.  She went on to explain that, when the IGA was formed, the forming entities intended for the waiver process to allow the BBRSA Board to “waive” the fee for property owners who could show proof that they should not be included (due to changes in water flow, property boundaries, etc.). 

 

However, after the IGA was formed, the BBRSA Board adopted a policy (which went into affect last month) stating that they will look at requests for waiver and provide recommendations to the forming entities so they can make the final decision.  Ms. Haag explained that this was not how the founding entities intended for the “waiver” process to work.  The founding entities all agree that this is not the way it was intended to be, but they have not yet addressed this matter with the BBRSA Board.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the informal handling of dispute concerns in the past, the fact that those inside the BBRSA should have a reliable way for their concerns to be heard, and the need to express this Board’s desire for the BBRSA Board to be more proactive and authoritative in the process of handling waiver requests.

 

Ms. Haag will relay the Board’s desire for the BBRSA Board to handle waiver requests, as originally intended, and will move forward toward having the founding entities address inaccuracies in the BBRSA Board policy adopted.

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION:

 

Ms. Haag requested that the Board go into Executive Session Regarding Personnel Matter as outlined in 24-6-402(4)(f) C.R.S. for confidential legal advice.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for conferences with an attorney 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 meeting adjourned at 12:22 p.m. with no further action taken.

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

                        KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

­­­______________________________________

Angela Myers, Deputy Clerk

 

­­­______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk