Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 
> Meetings & Minutes > Commissioners' Minutes > BCC Minutes for 12/21/09  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

 

Monday, December 21, 2009

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION

 

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: Linda Hoffmann, Russ Legg, Matt Lafferty, and Michael Whitley, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, and Bill Ressue, County Attorneys’ Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving confidential 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 2:45 p.m., with no action taken.

 

 

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:  Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Rob Helmick, Karin Madson, Toby Stauffer, and Sean Wheeler, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag, County Attorney’s Office; 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.

 

Kathryn Criste addressed the Board regarding the Land Use Code.  Ms. Criste requested the Board add a revision to the code that would allow for the fostering of pet animals, specifically dogs and cats. Recently, Ms. Criste was asked to help foster some of the 100-sled dogs rescued from a shelter in Park County. When she contacted staff to make sure this was possible under the current land use code, Chad Gray informed her that because she would not obtain ownership of the animals, she could not have them on her property.

 

Commissioner Johnson asked Ms. Criste how long the average pet animal would require foster care.  Ms. Criste stated that the length of time depends on the health and age of the animal; however, the time span is typically three weeks to six months.

 

Chair Rennels thanked Ms. Criste and instructed staff to begin drafting an appropriate amendment to the Land Use Code.

 

Mr. Lafferty informed the Board that the applicants of item #4, “The Green at Auburn Estates Conservation Development Preliminary Plat, file #06-S2658;” and item #5, “The Preserve Conservation Development Final Plat and Rezoning Extension, file #05-S2422 and #05-Z1506;” were in agreement with staff’s recommendations and both items would be added to the consent agenda.

 

Chair Rennels explained 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.         HANDLEY EXEMPTION TRACT A AMENDED PLAT AND BETS-NELL BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, FILE #09-A2922:  This is a request to amend Tract A of the Handley Exemption and the Bets-Nell property, a metes and bounds property adjacent to the Handley Exemption. The intent of the amendment is to transfer a strip of land, 0.28-a c res , along the fence line from the Bets-Nell property to Tract A.

 

In reviewing the request, staff has found the amendment and boundary line adjustment will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any c ounty agency and the amended plat will not result in any additional lots; therefore, staff finds the request meets the requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Handley Exemption Tract A Amended Plat and Bets-Nell Boundary Line Adjustment, f ile #09-S2922, subject to the following conditions ( and authorization for the chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature ) :

 

1.    The f inal p lat shall be recorded by June 21, 2010 , or this approval shall be null and void.

 

2.    Prior to recordation of the f inal p lat , the applicant shall make the technical corrections requested by the Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

3.    Prior to the recordation of the f inal p lat, the applicant shall make the corrections requested by Larimer County Planning Department.

 

2.         MEADOWDALE HILLS 2ND FILLING, LOTS 111-114 AMENDED PLAT, FILE #09-S2923:   This is a request to amend the plat of lots 111, 113, and 114 Meadowdale Hills 2nd Filing; and lot 112 of the Amended Plat of Lot 74 and 112, and a portion of Alpine Drive, Meadowdale Hills 2nd Filing to reshape four lot boundaries. 

 

The four lots in question are owned by two separate families, who wish to reshape them into better reflect the terrain and fulfill an agreement between the parties. Currently, the lots are very narrow and run down the fall line of a steep slope and the proposed reconfiguration would result in squarer configurations with access from the upper part of the lots. This has the potential to reduce the impacts on slopes and provides for more useable lots areas. 

 

Access to the two new “upper” lots will be by an existing easement off of Columbine Drive.  This easement is currently in place and was originally obtained for this purpose. The parties of the plat have been working on this issue since the mid 1990’s and this proposal has the potential to settle pending litigation. 

 

Staff recommends approval of the Meadowdale Hills 2nd filing Lots 111-114 Amended Plat,  file #09-2923, subject to the following conditions (and authorization for the chair 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 June 21, 2010, or this approval shall be null and void.

 

2.    Prior to the recordation of the final plat, the applicant shall make the technical corrections required by Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

3.    The applicants must provide evidence, prior to final acceptance of the plat, that the access easement from Columbine Drive may be utilized by both lots 111A and 113A.

 

4.    Any covenants, deed restrictions, or other conditions of approval that apply to the original lots must also apply to the resultant lots and be noted on the final plat.

 

 

4.         THE GREEN AT AUBURN ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT, FILE #06-S2658:  This is a request for denial of the Preliminary Plat for the Green at Auburn Estates. The development includes 34- single-family residential lots and four residual lots. The development was proposed to be served by public water and sanitary sewer. The site is located on the west side of County R oad #3, ½ mile north of U.S. Highway 14 (Mulberry), and east of I-25. The total amount of developable land is 78.23- acres and the site is zoned FA-1 Farming.

 

Due to poor economic conditions, this project has not continued forward to approval of the preliminary plat. In March of 2009, Planning staff contacted the applicant and property owner by letter requesting an update as to the status of the project, and did not receive a reply. Staff contacted the applicant and property owner by telephone and letter in July 2009, again requesting an update to the status of the project. Staff received a response to the second letter via telephone in mid November, 2009. At that time , the property owner contacted the Planning Department and indicated she understood the project file was closed and expressed a desire not to continue forward with the process. Another partner to the application also contacted staff around this same time and also expressed a desire not to continue forward with the process.

 

Given the owner’s stated desire to close the file and the lack of any written response to the letter sent by s taff in July, 2009, staff recommends denial of the Preliminary Plat for the Green at Auburn Estates Conservation Development.

 

 

5.         THE PRESERVE CONSERVATION DEVLOPMENT FINAL PLAT AND REZONING EXTENSION, FILE #05-S2422 & #05-Z1506: This is a request for a two year extension of the preliminary plat approval and a request to pay half the final plat submittal fee.  In addition to the extension and submittal fee requests, the applicant is also seeking approval to remove a section of the site from the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) Overlay Zone and rezoning from R-1 to FA-1. 

 

The Preserve Conservation Development (CD) includes 10-single-family residential lots and three residual lots, which would be served by public water and sanitary sewer. The site is located on the south side of County Road 48 (Vine) and ¾ mile east of Interstate-25. The total amount of developable land is 80-acres, with approximately 4.4-acres of the site located inside the Fort Collins GMA Overlay Zone (zoned R-1), while the balance of the site is zoned FA-1. On June 21, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the Preliminary Plat.  The Planning Commission also recommended approval to rezone 4.4-acres of the site from R-1 to FA-1, and removing that area from the Fort Collins GMA Overlay Zone. Comments from the City of Fort Collins provided during the review in 2006 did not object to removal of the area from the GMA. Lastly, the recommendation also included support for four (4) appeals related to engineering standards, the residual land design, and development of property within the GMA as a Planned Land Division.

 

The County Commissioners approved the project on August 28, 2006, and the applicant submitted the final plat for review and approval on February 2, 2007.

 

Due to economic conditions, this project has not continued to approval of the final plat. In March of 2009, Planning Staff contacted the applicant and property owner by letter requesting an update as to the status of the project (as the last update to the final plat materials had been made in May of 2007). Staff did not receive a reply to this letter. Staff contacted the applicant by letter in July 2009, again requesting an update to the status of the project. Staff received a response to the second letter via telephone on November 30, 2009, when the applicant contacted the Planning Department about options described in the July letter. He indicated that one of the original owners was no longer connected with the project, and the remaining owner would like to keep the file active. Staff has not received any formal communication from the owner as to whether they would like to complete the final plat process, or withdraw the final plat and receive an extension to the preliminary plat review for an additional set time.

 

Without any formal response from the applicant beyond a verbal indication they desire to keep the file open, the Development Services Team recommends approval of a two year extension of the Preliminary Plat and a request to pay ½ the final plat submittal fee for the Preserve Conservation Development as described in file #05-S2422. Staff also recommends approval of the immediate rezoning of 4.4-acres of the site from R-1 to FA-1 and removal of the same from the boundaries of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District.  The above shall be subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Prior to January 1, 2010, the applicant shall submit a written request to withdraw the current final plat application.

 

2.         All conditions outlined in the Findings and Resolution approving the Preserve Conservation Development Preliminary Plat and appeals (signed on November 14, 2006, and recorded at Reception Number 20060087700) shall continue to apply, except as those conditions related to the rezoning of 4.4-acres.

 

3.         The final plat for the Preserve Conservation Development shall be submitted no later that January 1, 2012, or this Preliminary Plat time extension approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing.

 

4.         The rezoning of the 4.4-acre  area from R-1 to FA-1 and removal of area from the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District shall be effective immediately, on rerecording of the Findings and Resolution for the public hearing on December 21, 2009.

 

5.         At the time of final plat submittal the applicant shall pay an application fee of ½ the amount of the final plat fee in place at the time the application is made.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as published above.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

3.         OPEN RANGE COMMUNICATIONS CMRS APPEAL, FILE #09-G0184:   This is an appeal to Section 16.1.3.A.3.a. of the Larimer County Land Use Code, to permit a setback of 19-feet for the extension of an existing 60-foot tower to 80-feet (an 80-foot tower currently requires a setback of 24-feet).

 

The subject property is zoned C-Commercial and has an existing 60-foot tower that was approved administratively in 2006 (file #06-Z1580). The existing tower meets the setback requirement of 30% of the tower height at 19-feet from the property line; however, the applicant would like to extend the tower to 80-feet but a tower of that height would require a setback of  24-feet from the property line. The applicant would like to keep the tower in the current location, which will require approval of this appeal to the code requirement.

 

The administrative review application (file 09-Z1765) for the tower extension will be reviewed separately from this appeal request.

 

One neighboring property owner has submitted an email citing concerns with the tower in general.

 

Through their review of this appeal, staff has found that approval of the request is consistent with the standards or requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Open Range Communications Appeal, file #09-G0184.

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing to the applicant and Brad Johnson addressed the Board on behalf of Open Range Communications.  Mr. Johnson stated that the Land Use Code directs individuals to co-locate towers whenever possible; however, to accommodate co-location, the tower must be extended.

 

Commissioners Donnelly and Johnson asked staff questions relating to the proximity of the tower to neighboring structures and neighboring residences.  Ms. Madson informed the Board that the residences of adjacent land owners are an adequate distance from the tower.

 

After some discussion, the Board concluded that due to the location and configuration of adjacent properties, they were in favor of the proposed extension to allow for co-location.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Open Range Communications Appeal, file #09-G0184.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

There being no further business, the hearing recessed at 3:30 p.m.

 

LAND USE HEARING

 

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

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing 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.         LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING 1041 PERMITS RELATING TO WATER/SEWER, FILE #09-CA0100:  This is a request to amend Section 14 of the adopted Land Use Code. The Larimer County Planning Commission discussed the proposed designation of domestic water and sewer transmission pipelines as Matters of State Interest at their hearing on October 16, 2009. The Commission reviewed the written comments and testimony of water and sewer service providers and concerned citizens. After some discussion, the Planning Commission supported the proposed language for the 1041 designation.

 

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #09-CA0100, as follows:

 

Section 14.0 Areas and Activities of State Interest

 

14.1     Purpose and Intent

The purpose of this section is to facilitate the identification, designation, and regulation of areas or activities of state interest consistent with applicable statutory requirements.

 

14.2.    Applicability

These regulations shall apply to all proceedings concerning the designation and regulation of any development in any area of state interest or any activity of state interest which has been, or may hereafter be, designated by the Board of County Commissioners, whether located on public or private land.

 

14.3.    Designation process for matters of state interest.

A.        The Board of County Commissioners may in its discretion designate and adopt regulations for the administration of any matter of state interest.

 

B.        Public hearing required.

1.         The Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing before designating any matter of state interest and adopting regulations for the administration thereof; no less than thirty (30) calendar days but no more than sixty (60) calendar days before the designation hearing, the Board shall publish notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county.

 

2.         The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing and provide a recommendation to the Board on the proposed designation prior to the Board hearing. Notice of any hearing before the Planning Commission shall be published no less than fourteen (14) days before the Planning Commission hearing date in a newspaper of general circulation in the county.

 

C.        Criteria for designations.

At the public hearings(s), the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall consider such evidence as they deem appropriate, including, but not necessarily limited to testimony and documents addressing the following considerations.

 

1.         The intensity of current and foreseeable development pressures.

 

2.         The reasons why the particular area or activity is of state interest, the dangers that would result from uncontrolled development of any such area or uncontrolled conduct of such activity, and the advantages of development of such area or conduct of such activity in a coordinated manner.

 

3.         Applicable policies of the Larimer County Master Plan and any duly adopted intergovernmental agreements affected by the area or activity under consideration.

 

4.         The extent to which other governmental entities regulate the area or activity proposed to be designated.

 

5.         The testimony, evidence, and documents taken and admitted at the public hearing.

 

6.         The recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission.

 

D.        Adoption of designation and regulations.

1.         At the conclusion of the hearing, or within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Board may, by resolution, adopt, adopt with modification, or reject the proposed designation and accompanying guidelines or regulations.

 

2.         Each designation order adopted by the Board shall, at a minimum:

a.         Specify the activity or area of state interest to be designated;

 

b.         Specify the boundaries of the designated area of state interest, if applicable;

 

c.         State reasons why the designation is appropriate in light of the review criteria considered at the public hearings pursuant to the above section; and

 

d.         Specify the regulations applicable to the designated matter of state interest.

 

14.4.    Designated Matters of State Interest.

The Board of County Commissioners, having conducted a public hearing consistent with the requirements of Section 24.65.1-404 C.R.S. and having considered the intensity of current and foreseeable pressures on and within Larimer County; the dangers that would result from uncontrolled conduct of such activity or development in an area of state interest; and the advantages of conduct of such activity in a coordinated manner, does hereby find and declare the following to be matters of state interest. A 1041 permit shall be required prior to any of the following activities, unless specifically exempted.

 

A.        Siting and development of any electrical power plant with a generating capacity of fifty (50) megawatts or more, or any addition to an existing power plant which increases the existing design capacity by fifty (50) megawatts or more.  This designation shall not include use of temporary generators at an existing electrical power plant in an emergency situation. 

 

B.        Conversion of an existing electrical power plant to a new type of fuel or energy, but not including a change from coal to natural gas, and also not including a change in start-up fuel. 

 

C.        Siting and development of a nuclear power plant of any size, or any addition thereto.

 

D.        Siting and development of a wind power plant in which there are more than three wind towers or where any wind generator tower exceeds a hub height of 80-feet, or any addition thereto increasing the existing design capacity of the facility by 10% or more or expanding the area of the plant.

 

E.         Siting of electric transmission lines and appurtenant facilities that are designed to transmit electrical voltages of 69,000-volts or greater, whether erected above ground or placed underground.

 

F.         Any existing transmission line upgrade that involves expanding an easement or right-of-way or increases the height of transmission structures by more than ten (10) feet.

 

G.        Siting of an electrical substation or transition site designed to provide switching, voltage transformation or voltage control required for the transmission of electricity at 69,000-volts or greater. 

 

H.        (Option A) Siting and development of new or extended domestic water or sewer transmission lines which use 24-inch or larger diameter pipelines. 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, replacement or enlargement of an existing pipeline within the same easement or right-of-way, provided no additional property acquisitions are required, not including temporary construction easements. The designation shall also not include the addition, replacement, expansion, or maintenance of appurtenant facilities on existing pipelines.

 

or:

 

            (Option B) Siting and development of new or extended domestic water or sewer transmission lines which are contained within new permanent easements greater than 30-feet or within new permanent easements greater than 20-feet that are adjacent to existing easements.  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, replacement, or enlargement of an existing pipeline within the same easement or right-of-way, provided no additional permanent property acquisitions are required. 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

 

J.          Siting and development of new or extended domestic water or sewer transmission lines which are contained within new permanent easements greater than 30-feet or within new permanent easements greater than 20-feet that are adjacent to existing easements.  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, replacement, or enlargement of an existing pipeline within the same easement or right-of-way, provided no additional permanent property acquisitions are required. The designation shall also not include the addition, replacement, expansion, or maintenance of appurtenant facilities on existing pipelines.

 

14.5.    Exempt Development Activities.

A.        Statutory Exemptions. 

These regulations shall not apply to any development in an area of state interest or any activity of state interest if any one of the following is true as of May 17, 1974.

 

1.         The specific development or activity was covered by a current building permit issued by the county.

 

2.         The specific development or activity was directly approved by the electorate of the state or the county, provided that approval by the electorate of any bond issue by itself shall not be construed as approval of the specific development or activity.

 

3.         The specific development or activity is on land which has been finally approved by the county, with or without conditions, for planned unit development or land use similar to a planned unit development.

 

4.         The specific development or activity is on land which was either zoned or rezoned in response to an application which contemplated the specific development or activity.

 

5.         The specific development or activity is on land for which a development plan has been conditionally or finally approved by the county.

 

B.        Specific Exemptions.

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

 

1.         Any activity which, as of the date of designation as a matter of state interest, meets one of the following criteria:

 

a.         The activity is part of a final discretionary county land use approval and protected by a site specific development plan or agreement whose vesting period has not expired.

 

b.         The activity has a complete application filed and in process for a discretionary county land use approval, provided the applicant (if a public entity) commits to being bound by any conditions of a final county approval or by denial of the application.

 

c.         The specific activity has been acted upon by the Planning Commission as a location and extent application.

 

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.

 

3.         An entity that has an approved Intergovernmental Agreement with the County specific to the proposed project as provided for in Section 14.8, below.

 

14.6.    Relationship to other county, state, and federal requirements.

A.        If a 1041 permit is required under this Section 14, other sections of the code shall not apply unless specifically stated in this Section 14, or unless applied by the County Commissioners as conditions of approval.

 

B.        Review or approval of a project by a federal or state agency does not obviate, and will not substitute for, the need to obtain a 1041 permit for that project under this section.

 

C.        These regulations shall not be applied to create an operational conflict with any state or federal laws or regulations.

 

1.         The applicant may request that the county application and review process be coordinated with the applicable state or federal agency review process.

 

2.         To the extent practicable and appropriate, the county may coordinate its review and approval of the application, including the terms and conditions of such approval, with that of other agencies.

 

14.7.    Appeal of 1041 permit requirement.

An applicant may appeal the requirement for obtaining a 1041 permit.

 

A.        Appeal process.

1.       Initiation of appeal.  A written application for appeal must be submitted to the planning director on a form provided by the planning department. An application fee established by the county commissioners must be paid when the appeal is submitted. 

 

2.       Contents of appeal.  The appeal application must include a description of the scope of the proposed activity and evidence that supports the appeal including evidence that demonstrates how section 14.7.B. review criteria are met. 

 

3.       Scheduling.  Upon receipt of the appeal, the planning director will schedule the appeal on the next available agenda of the county commissioners, no later than 60-days after the date on which a properly completed application is filed. 

 

4.       Notice.  Notice shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 12.3 Notice of Public Hearing.  Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least fourteen (14) days before the hearing date.

 

5.       Action by the county commissioners.   

a.       At the appeal hearing the county commissioners will take relevant evidence and testimony from the person who filed the appeal, county staff, and any interested party.

 

b.       The applicant shall have the burden of proving that granting the appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Section 14.

 

c.       The County Commissioners may refer an appeal to the planning commission for a recommendation. The decision to refer an appeal to the Planning Commission will be made by the County Commissioners within 14-days of the date the appeal was submitted.

 

d.       The decision of the County Commissioners shall be final. 

 

B.        The County Commissioners shall consider each of the following review criteria and make findings pertaining to each one which, in their discretion, applies to the appeal.

 

1.         Approval of the appeal will not subvert the purpose or intent of this Section 14;

 

2.         The development or activity has received approval through a state or federal permitting process which has utilized review criteria substantially the same as those contained in this regulation, and which has afforded a similar or greater amount of input by affected citizens and property owners of Larimer County;

 

3.         In the case of siting and development of a new domestic water or sewer transmission pipeline, evidence has been provided that:

 

a.         The proposed pipeline is located entirely on property owned by the entity proposing the activity and/or within easements or rights-of-way that have been acquired from willing sellers, or

 

b.         I.          The proposed pipeline is located entirely within a Special District organized under C.R.S. Title 32, or a Public or Local Improvement District organized under C.R.S. 30-20-Parts 5 and 6, and is intended to provide water or sewer service to properties located within that district in Larimer County; and

 

II.        Written notice of all scheduled public meetings of the district has been given to all property owners who may be directly affected by the activity, and to the County Commissioners, not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the meeting concerning the siting and development of the new pipeline.

 

14.8.    Intergovernmental agreements.

 

A.        Upon request of the State of Colorado or a political subdivision of the state proposing to engage in an area or activity of state interest, the requirements of this Section 14 may be met by the approval of an intergovernmental agreement between the county and such applicant. The County Commissioners may, but shall be under no obligation to do so, approve such an intergovernmental agreement in lieu of a permit application and review as provided by this section.  In the event such an agreement is approved by the County Commissioners, no 1041 permit application to conduct the activity or area of state interest shall be required, provided that all of the following conditions are met.

 

1.         The state or political subdivision applicant and the county must both be authorized to enter into such an agreement.

 

2.         The purpose and intent of this Section 14 must be satisfied by the terms of the agreement.

 

3.         A public hearing must be conducted by the county commissioners. Notice of the hearing must be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in Larimer County not less than 30-days nor more than 60-days before the date set for the hearing. Prior to the hearing, the County Commissioners shall approve the form of any proposed intergovernmental agreement, subject, however, to final approval of the agreement at the conclusion of or subsequent to the public hearing and based upon the evidence presented there. The public hearing shall be for the purpose of taking comment upon the proposed intergovernmental agreement, the provisions of which have been determined to be acceptable to the applicant and to the county.

           

And a notice must be mailed to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing(s) according to the procedures and requirements of Section 12.3.3 Mailed notice.

 

4.         Both the county commissioners and the state or the governing body of the political subdivision applicant must approve the agreement in the manner required of each of them by the state constitution, statutes, and any applicable charter, ordinance or resolution.

 

B.        Exercise of the provisions of this section by the state or an applicant that is a political subdivision of the state shall not prevent that entity from electing at any time to proceed under the permit provisions of this regulation. Additionally, any entity which has previously proceeded under the permit provisions of this regulation may at any time elect to proceed instead to seek the establishment of an agreement.

 

14.9.    1041 Permit Application and Review Process.

 

A.        No person may engage in development in a designated area of state interest or conduct a designated activity of state interest without first obtaining a 1041 permit, unless the County Commissioners have granted an appeal to the requirement for a 1041 permit or have adopted an intergovernmental agreement per Section 14.8 such that a permit is not required.

 

1.         If a development or activity subject to these regulations is proposed as an integral part of a land division process, the applicant shall comply with this section prior to obtaining final plat approval.

 

2.         No building permit shall be issued by the county for an activity or development subject to this section without the applicant having first obtained a 1041 permit, unless the County Commissioners have granted an appeal to the requirement for a 1041 permit or have adopted an intergovernmental agreement per Section 14.8 such that a permit is not required.

 

3.         1041 permits issued under this section shall not be considered to be a site specific development plan and no statutory vested rights shall inure to such permit. A 1041 permit may specify a period of time for which the permit is valid or state additional criteria related to future validity of the permit.

 

B.        General process outline. The following is a general outline of the steps required for any permit decision under this section. More specific information regarding these referenced steps is contained in Section 12 Common Procedures for Development Review and in the Technical Supplement to the Land Use Code.

 

1.         Pre-application conference.

 

2.         Complete and sufficient application received.

 

3.         Referral to affected agencies.

 

4.         Public hearing before the planning commission and county commissioners.

 

5.         Post-approval requirements.

 

C.        Notice of 1041 permit hearing. Notice shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 12.3. Notice of public hearing.

 

1.         Not later than 30-days after receipt of a completed application for a 1041 permit, the planning director shall set and publish notice of the date, time, and place for a hearing before the County Commissioners. The notice shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in Larimer County, not less than 30-days and no more than 60-days before the date set for the hearing.

 

a.         The planning director shall be responsible for the determination that a complete and sufficient application has been received. 

 

b.         Not later than 60-days after receipt of the application,  the planning director shall provide a written description of any application materials that are determined to be not complete and the additional materials that are necessary before application processing may begin.

 

2.         Within the time constraints above, the planning director shall schedule the application for a hearing before the planning commission. Notice of the planning commission hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation for the county at least fourteen (14) days before the hearing date.

 

3.         A notice will be mailed to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing(s) according to the procedures and requirements of Section 12.3.3 Mailed notice. 

 

4.         C.R.S. §§ 30-28-133(10) and 24-65.5-103(1) require an applicant for development to notify all owners and lessees of a mineral interest on the subject property of the pending application. The applicant must submit, to the planning department, a certification of compliance with this notice requirement, prior to the initial public hearing for a 1041 permit, except for those types of development applications specifically excluded below. Failure to submit the required certification of notice will result in the public hearing being rescheduled to a later date. According to C.R.S. §§ 24-65.5-102(2) an application for development does not include applications with respect to electric lines, crude oil or natural gas pipelines, steam pipelines, chilled and other water pipelines, or appurtenances to said lines or pipelines; therefore notification of mineral interest owners and lessees is not required for those activities.

 

D.        Any application for a 1041 permit which relates to the location, construction, or improvements of a major electrical or natural gas facility as contemplated by 29‑20‑108 C.R.S. as amended shall be subject to the terms of that statute.  In the event of an inconsistency between the statute and these regulations, the statute shall control.

 

E.         The planning director may, when necessary, decide that additional expertise is needed to review a project, according to the procedure detailed in Section 8.01.A of this Code.

 

14.10. General requirements for approval of a 1041 permit application.

 

A.        The applicant must submit a complete and sufficient application that is consistent with the submittal requirements that are stated at the pre-application conference.

 

B.        A 1041 permit application may be approved only when the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal, including all mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, complies with all of the applicable criteria set forth in this Section 14. If the proposal does not comply with all the applicable criteria, the permit shall be denied, unless the County Commissioners determine that reasonable conditions can be imposed on the permit which will enable the permit to comply with the criteria.

 

C.        If the County Commissioners determine at the public hearing that sufficient information has not been provided to allow it to determine if the applicable criteria have been met, the Board may continue the hearing until the specified additional information has been received. The Commissioners shall adopt a written decision on a 1041 permit application within 90-days after the completion of the permit hearing. The 1041 permit will be in the form of a Findings and Resolution signed by the Board of County Commissioners. The effective date shall be the date on which the Findings and Resolution is signed.

 

D.        Review criteria for approval of all 1041 permits.

 

1.         The proposal is consistent with the Master Plan and applicable intergovernmental agreements affecting land use and development.

 

2.         The applicant has presented reasonable siting and design alternatives or explained why no reasonable alternatives are available.

 

3.         The proposal conforms with adopted county standards, review criteria and mitigation requirements concerning environmental impacts, including but not limited to those contained in Section 8 of this code.

 

4.         The proposal will not have a significant adverse effect on or will adequately mitigate significant adverse effects on the land on which the proposal is situated and on lands adjacent to the proposal.

 

5.         The proposal will not adversely affect any sites and structures listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places. 

 

6.         The proposal will not negatively impact public health and safety.

 

7.         The proposal will not be subject to significant risk from natural hazards including floods, wildfire or geologic hazards.

 

8.         Adequate public facilities and services are available for the proposal or will be provided by the applicant, and the proposal will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local government to provide services or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems.

 

9.         The applicant will mitigate any construction impacts to county roads, bridges and related facilities. Construction access will be re-graded and re-vegetated to minimize environmental impacts.

 

10.       The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or reduction of productivity of agricultural lands as a result of the proposed development.

 

11.       The proposal demonstrates a reasonable balance between the costs to the applicant to mitigate significant adverse affects and the benefits achieved by such mitigation.

 

12.       The recommendations of staff and referral agencies have been addressed to the satisfaction of the County Commissioners.

 

14.11. Additional specific review criteria and standards.

 

A.        Additional review criteria for power plants.

 

1.         Proposed transmission facilities have been identified and included as part of the power plant project.

 

2.         Wind power plants must meet the following standards:

 

a.         All towers must be set back at least 750-feet from property lines and public rights of way.

 

b.         The wind generator turbines and towers must be painted or coated a non-reflective white, grey, or other neutral color.

 

c.         Facilities must not be artificially illuminated unless required by the FAA.

 

d.         Facilities must not be used to display advertising. 

 

e.         Electrical controls must be wireless or underground and power lines must be underground except where the electrical collector wiring is brought together for connection to the transmission or distribution network, adjacent to that network.

 

f.          Noise generated from the wind power plant must be in compliance with the Chapter 30, Article V. Noise of the Larimer County Code.

 

g.         The operator of the plant must minimize or mitigate any interference with electromagnetic communications, such as radio, telephone, or television signals caused by the plant.

 

h.         Towers for wind generators must be constructed of a tubular design and include anti-climb features.

 

i.          The facility design must use best practices available to protect wildlife.

 

B.        Additional review criteria for electrical transmission lines.

 

1.         The siting and design of the proposal addresses potential levels of electrical and magnetic fields (EMFs) by exercising “prudent avoidance” to limit exposure. 

 

14.12. Post approval requirements.

Prior to the issuance of a 1041 permit approved under this section the follow conditions must be met, if applicable.

 

A.        The applicant may be required to obtain a construction permit from the county engineer.

 

B.        A development agreement may be required as a condition of approval of the 1041 permit and may include requirements for performance guarantees.

 

C.        An agreement concerning decommissioning, abandonment or reuse of the permitted facility may be required as a condition of approval of the 1041 permit.

 

14.13. Technical revisions and 1041 permit amendments.

 

A.        Any change in the construction or operation of the project from that approved by the County Commissioners shall require staff review and a determination made by the planning director in writing as to whether the change is a technical revision or 1041 permit amendment. 

 

B.        A proposed change shall be considered a technical revision if the planning director determines that there will be no increase in the size of the area affected or the intensity of impacts as a result of the proposed change(s); or any increase in the area or intensity of impacts is insignificant.

 

C.        Changes other than technical revisions shall be considered 1041 permit amendments. A permit amendment shall be subject to review as a new permit application.

 

Ms. Bennett informed the Board that during meetings between utility providers and staff, there was a significant amount of discussion surrounding Section 14.4.J and the determining factor for 1041 designation. Staff has recommended pipe diameter to be the determining factor, as illustrated in Option A, below; however, utility service providers would like easement size to be the determining factor as illustrated in Option B, below.

 

Option A:  “Siting and development of new or extended domestic water or sewer transmission lines which use 24-inch or larger diameter pipelines. 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, replacement or enlargement of an existing pipeline within the same easement or right-of-way, provided no additional property acquisitions are required, not including temporary construction easements. The designation shall also not include the addition, replacement, expansion or maintenance of appurtenant facilities on existing pipelines.”

 

 

Option B:  “Siting and development of new or extended domestic water or sewer transmission lines which are contained within new permanent easements greater than 30-feet or within new permanent easements greater than 20-feet that are adjacent to existing easements.  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, replacement or enlargement of an existing pipeline within the same easement or right-of-way, provided no additional permanent property acquisitions are required. The designation shall also not include the addition, replacement, expansion or maintenance of appurtenant facilities on existing pipelines.”

 

Chair Rennels opened the hearing to public comment.

 

Susan Cordery-Cotter addressed the Board on behalf of the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee (LAPAC) and stated that the LAPAC is in favor of the proposed 1041 designation, with the strictest guidelines possible.  Ms. Cordery-Cotter stated that she did not feel designation should be determined based on easements because utility providers could place a very large pipe with a very small permanent easement, ultimately nullifying the purpose of the 1041 process.

 

Chris Glenn and Sean Dougherty addressed the Board, on behalf of the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, and voiced their support of the proposed 1041 process. 

 

Gina Janett, Mary Humstone, and George Burnette addressed the Board in favor of approval of 1041 powers with designation based on pipe diameter. Many cited distrust in utility providers and the amount of possible damage caused to properties and the environment during the construction process.

 

John Monson from the City of Greeley, appeared before the Board and expressed his desire for the county to maintain the current Location and Extent process.  Mr. Monson stated that through his work on the Greeley pipeline, he has become familiar with the current process and believes it to be meaningful.

 

Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Monson if Weld County uses a 1041 review process for water and sewer pipelines.  Mr. Monson stated Weld County does not currently utilize a 1041 process for water or sewer pipelines.

 

Fred Walker, Boxelder Sanitation District; Jim Hibbard, Little Thompson Water District; Don Toronto, TST Engineering; and Steve Adams, City of Loveland; addressed the Board in favor of 1041 regulations with designation based on easement size.  Mr. Walker stated that because the Board charged the taskforce to find the best way for the county to monitor the surface/environmental disruption caused by water and sewer projects, they feel designation of 1041 processes should be determined based on the size of the permanent easement required to maintain the pipeline.

 

Chair Rennels closed public comment.

 

There was much discussion between the Board and staff about notification requirements and exceptions for Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s).

 

Commissioner Johnson stated that he was very appreciative of the work performed by the taskforce and the complete collaboration that occurred. He explained that was inclined to support 1041 process determination based on pipe diameter because easement sizes may vary, whereas pipe diameter would remain constant. He felt that basing determination upon pipe diameter would provide increased transparency and certainty for the public.

 

Commissioner Donnelly explained that because property and environmental disturbances are such a key piece of water/sewer projects, he felt the 1041 processes should be determined by the size of the permanent easement. He stated that determination based on the size of an easement would be more informative to the public and minimize the size of permanent easements, while also lessening the disturbance of properties and the environment.

 

Chair Rennels explained that the location and extent process did not adequately serve the county and she was thankful that staff had so much support from utility providers when attempting to create a better process. She questioned staff about determination of a “complete application” and whether 60-days would be adequate time for the Planning Director to review the application and prepare a written statement.  Ms. Bennett assured her that 60-days would be adequate time.

 

Chair Rennels stated that she did not feel pipe diameter would be a clear, consistent indicator of impact; therefore, she also supported the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code with the determining factor for 1041 processes being easement size. 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Revised Proposed Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, Section 14, Matters of State Interest, file #09-CA0100, as it appears above, including Section 14.4.H “Option B.”

 

Commissioner Johnson made a subsidiary motion that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Revised Proposed Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, Section 14, Matters of State Interest, file #09-CA0100, as it appears above, including Section 14.4.H “Option A.”

 

Motion failed 1-2, Commissioners Donnelly and Rennels dissenting.

 

Commissioner Donnelly again moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Revised Proposed Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, Section 14, Matters of State Interest, file #09-CA0100, as it appears above, including Section 14.4.H “Option B.”

 

Motion carried 2-1, Commissioner Johnson dissenting.

 

There being no further notice, the hearing adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

 

 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 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: Donna Hart, and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Mark Peterson, Jerry White, and Dale Greer, Engineering Department; Jill Bennett, and Rob Helmick, Planning Department; Michael Kirk, and Steve Balderson, Facilities Department; Linda Hoffmann, Rural Land Use Center; John Slutski, Val Manning, and Curtis Bridges, Agriculture Advisory Board; Karen Crumbaker, Extension Office; and Gael Cookman, Deputy Clerk.

 

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

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEKS OF DECEMBER 7, 2009, AND DECEMBER 14, 2009:

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the weeks of December 7, 2009, and December 14, 2009, as presented.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

3.  REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 28, 2009:

 

Ms. Hart 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 December 22, 2009, as outlined below:

 

12222009A001           SUPPORT TO OTHER ENTITIES FUND CONTRACT #CPP010-2010 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION, AND NORTH RANGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

 

12222009A002           SUPPORT TO OTHER ENTITIES FUND CONTRACT #CPP011-2010 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION, AND THE LARIMER CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH

 

12222009A003           AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT PROPERTY AT 1730 E PROSPECT ROAD, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND WATER PIK, INC.

 

12222009A004           SECOND RENEWAL AND REPLACMENT OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE TOWN OF TIMANATH, COLORADO,  AND THE LARIMER COUNTY SHERIFF

 

 

12222009A005           2010 RURAL LARIMER COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICE (LOVELAND) INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF LOVELAND

 

12222009A006           AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (RECOVERY ACT) COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) SUBCONTRACT CSBG-ARRA-03 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATIVE TO VIOLENCE, INC.

 

12222009A007           AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (RECOVERY ACT) COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) SUBCONTRACT CSBG-ARRA-04 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR, INC.

 

12222009A008           AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (RECOVERY ACT) COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) SUBCONTRACT CSBG-ARRA-09 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND HOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICE

 

12222009A009           AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (RECOVERY ACT) COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) SUBCONTRACT CSBG-ARRA-01 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE UNITED WAY OF LARIMER COUNTY

 

12222009A010           AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (RECOVERY ACT) COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) SUBCONTRACT CSBG-ARRA-08 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE EDUCATION & LIFE TRAINING CENTER

 

12222009D001           DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT 2009 BY MILLER SIMON BOKOVOY LLC, IN FAVOR OF LARIMER COUNTY COLORADO

 

12222009R001           RESOLUTION VACATING PIPELINE EASEMENT; LISTOWSKI

 

12222009R002           RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR LARIMER COUNTY APPOINTED OFFICIALS

 

12222009R003           FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDREY’S ACRES MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT 2 AMENDED PLAT – KRETCHMER BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT

 

12222009R004           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSION OF APPROVAL OWASSA SUBDIVISION LOT 1, BLOCK 31 (FILE #09-S2846)

 

12222009R005           RESOLUTION REGARDING EXTENSTION OF APPROVAL LOVELAND HEIGHTS LOTS 11 & 12 AMENDED PLAT

 

MISCELLANEOUS:  Adoption of the 2010 New and Updated Regulations for Land and Water Managed by the Department of Natural Resources in Larimer County, Colorado; Agreement and Release between Employee and Larimer County; CDHS Certification of Compliance – County Merit System – Year 2010; Amendment and Restatement of Retirement Plan Via Adoption of Valic Retirement Service Company.

 

LIQUOR LICENSES:  The following licenses were approved and/or issued:  Sundance Steakhouse – Hotel and Restaurant – Fort Collins; Emissaries of Divine Light – Special Event 6% - Loveland. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

5.  RED FEATHER LAKES TRAVELED ROAD CENTERLINE SURVEY:  Mr. Peterson presented the scope of work for establishing a Global Positioning System (GPS) centerline survey of the roads and segments in the Red Feather Lakes Area.  Mr. Peterson noted that the Red Feather Lakes Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) has reviewed and concurs with the proposed scope of work. He requested the Board authorize the expenditure of $10,000 (currently not budgeted), to hire a professional land surveyor to complete the identified work items.   Mr. Peterson further requested the Board’s approval to use Ayre Associates, a local engineering consulting firm, to provide the services listed in the scope of work.  He stated that sole-sourcing with Ayre Associates would be the most cost effective and efficient way to complete the work since they have previously collected survey data along many of the roadways and have already developed some of the necessary exhibits. 

 

Commissioner Donnelly wanted to ensure that the completed work would provide sufficient monumentation for the surveyors in Red Feather Lakes.  Mr. Greer presented examples of the proposed work and stated that the GPS survey would sufficiently provide this data. 

 

Chair Rennels suggested that the Engineering Department consider applying for grant monies to help fund this project as well.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the scope of work and authorize the Engineering Department to hire Ayres Associates to complete the work to be funded with carryover funds in 2010 from the 2009 Engineering budget, and explore the possibility of supplemental grant funding from the Department of Local Affairs for this project. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

6.  HVAC UPGRADE IN EVIDENCE STORAGE AREA AT THE SHERIFF ADMINISTRATION OFFICES:  Mr. Kirkland explained that the Sheriff’s Evidence Storage area and the Evidence Lab share a common HVAC system, and that there are often dramatic temperature variations due to process requirements of the Evidence Lab, which leave the Evidence Storage area especially cold in the winter time.  Mr. Kirkland requested Board approval for the use of $40,000 from the Courthouse Sales Tax funds to install an additional heat pump system to provide temperature control for the storage area. 

 

Discussion ensued, and the Commissioners requested a site visit in order to gain a better understanding of the issue at hand.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners table this item until the Board can tour the facilities and gain a better understanding of the need to fund this project.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

7.   PROVIDE REDUNDANT AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM FOR THE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT ROOM AT THE SHERIFF ADMINISTRATION OFFICES:  Mr. Kirkland explained the need to provide a redundant air conditioning system for the computer equipment room at the Sheriff’s Administration Offices.  Mr. Balderson explained that this is called N+1 redundancy, which is common in data centers, and will be used for supporting critical equipment and emergency services at this location.  Mr. Lancaster also noted that this computer equipment room serves as a backup to the computer equipment located at the courthouse.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the use of an estimated $50,000 of Courthouse Sales Tax funds to provide a redundant air conditioning system for the computer equipment room at the Sheriff Administration Offices.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

 

 

8.  PROBATION REMODEL AT THE LOVELAND POLICE AND COURTS BUILDING:  Mr. Kirkland requested $13,000 from the Courthouse Sales Tax reserve, to fund a minor interior building remodel for the Police & Courts Building in Loveland.  He stated that this will be necessary to meet growth needs and statutory requirements to provide space for the State Probation Department. 

 

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the use of $13,000 from the Courthouse Sales Tax reserve, to fund a minor interior building remodel for the Police & Courts Building in Loveland, Colorado, first floor, Courts area, to increase the number of offices available for Probation officers to meet with clients. 

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

9.    2010 CONFERENCE ON LARIMER COUNTY AGRICULTURE:  Ms. Hoffmann introduced members of the Agricultural Advisory Board, and explained that they have been working on a proposal for a one-day conference to be held in March 2010.  Ms. Manning presented the background of this project, noting that there will be three focus areas that pertain to: Water/Land, Energy, and Ag Marketing.   Ms. Hoffmann requested the Board’s endorsement on this effort and authorize them to proceed with hosting the event.  The Board agreed that this would be valuable information for the Agricultural community and unanimously supported the effort.

 

M O T I O N

 

Commissioner Johnson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the conference planning work done by the Education Committee of the Agricultural Advisory Board and authorize them to proceed with hosting the event.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

10   COUNTY MANAGER WORKSESSION:  There were no worksession items to discuss.

 

11.  COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS:  The Board reviewed their activities at events during the past week.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m., with no further action taken.

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

                        KATHAY RENNELS, CHAIR

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SCOTT DOYLE

CLERK AND RECORDER

 

ATTEST:

 

­­­______________________________________

Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk

 

­­­______________________________________

Gael M. Cookman, Deputy Clerk

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