MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Board of County Commissioners met at 1:00 p.m. with Frank Lancaster, County Manager. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were: Neil Gluckman and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Connie Ellis and Jeff Green, Risk Management Office; George Haas, County Attorney; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
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.
There being no further business, the Board recessed at 1:30 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 3:00 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were: Traci Shambo, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Chad Gray, Sean Wheeler, and Michael Whitley, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag and George Haas, County Attorney’s Office; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Johnson opened the hearing 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 Johnson explained that the following item was on today’s consent agenda and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience:
1. ORTON-SULLIVAN SUBDIVISION LOTS 3 & 5 CONSOLIDATION: This is a request to combine lot 3 and lot 5 of the Orton-Sullivan Subdivision. Each lot has enveloped 1/2 of lot 4 into their legal description. It is not known when Lot 4 was formally divided between lots 3 and 5, except that this took place sometime between 1913 (when the subdivision was platted) and 1938 as described on a deed recorded that year. The site is located on the west side of State Highway 34, between Drake and Estes Park, in an area surrounded by recreational and full-time residential uses.
The applicants recently purchased the property with the intent of resolving pending code compliance issues including construction over the property line and non-conforming setbacks. Approval of the lot consolidation would eliminate both of these code compliance issues. Also, if the request is approved, the applicants have agreed to apply for variances with the Board of Adjustment related to setbacks from State Highway 34 and the additions. These issues are the result of a previous owner constructing additions without building permits or inspections. If the Board of Adjustment approves the requests, the applicants have indicated they desire to work with the County Building Department to bring all structures up to current Building Code requirements and resolve issues related to structural safety.
Staff recommends approval of the consolidation request for the Orton-Sullivan Subdivision Lots 3 & 5, as described in file #09-S2926, subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of approval shall be met and the final resolution recorded by August 2, 2010, or this approval shall be null and void.
2. The resultant lot is subject to any and all covenants, deed restrictions, or other conditions that apply to the original lots.
3. Reconfiguration of lot lines shall be finalized at such time when the deed describing the new lot and the findings and resolution of the County Commissioners are recorded.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as published above.
Motion carried 3-0.
4. CONTRACT TO RECONSTRUCT A BUILDING AT THE RANCH: Mr. Haas requested the Board approve a contract with Gerald H. Phipps for reconstruction of the 1st National Bank Exhibition Building at The Ranch. During the Administrative Matters Meeting on December 15, 2009, the Board was informed of damage suffered by the building during a snowstorm in 2006. While the damages did not render the building unsafe, they are of great concern to staff, the Board, and the county’s insurance carrier.
Mr. Haas presented an agreement to be entered into by the Board and Mr. Phipps for reconstruction of the building and assured the Board that most reconstruction costs will be paid by the county’s insurance carrier.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the contract with Gerald H. Phipps to reconstruct the 1st National Bank Exhibition Building at The Ranch.
Motion carried 3-0.
02012010A001 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND GERALD H. PHIPPS FOR THE LARIMER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS AND EVENT CENTER, THE RANCH, RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
3. PALIN ZONING VIOLATION: The owners of the property are in violation of several codes by virtue of operating a commercial consulting company in an FA-Farming Zoning District and using a private storage building for a commercial business without obtaining a change of occupancy permit from the Larimer County Building Department. The codes violated include, Section 4.1.1 (FA- Farming Zoned District) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, and Section 105 (Permits) of the 2006 International Building Code adopted by Larimer County.
During the middle of October 2009, Code Compliance staff received an anonymous voice message and letter stating Earth Environmental Services, Inc. was inappropriately operating a business from the residence and, thereby, contaminating the neighborhood. Staff contacted the property owner, Curt Palin, to explain why the business was not in compliance with the Land Use Code of Larimer County.
Mr. Palin spoke with Planner Michael Whitley to discuss options for bringing the business into compliance at the residential location; however, it was determined that because the property is within the Fort Collins growth management area, Mr. Palin’s only option would be to rezone the property to PD-Planned Development. Mr. Palin decided against undergoing the rezoning process and opted to move the business to an approved location. After speaking with the Code Compliance Supervisor and the Planning Director, staff chose to extend the timeframe of a normal 6-week hearing to give the owner more time to find an appropriate place for the business. To date, the business is still illegally operating from the said residence but Mr. Palin has notified staff of his intent to move within the next few months.
Major issues and concerns include impacts on neighboring property owners’ quality of life from traffic, dust, noise, and visual impacts caused by the business. The site is a residential lot and it is reasonable to assume that adjoining residential properties will not become commercial properties. In addition, a change of occupancy permit has not been issued to allow employees and the public to occupy the subject building safely.
Mr. Gray noted that he was recently informed that the Mr. Palin has purchased another property and anticipates relocating the business by the end of February.
Chair Johnson opened the hearing to the property owner and Curtis Palin addressed the Board. Mr. Palin confirmed that he purchased a new property and planned to relocate his business.
There was no public comment on this item.
After some discussion by the Board and staff, it was decided that the home occupation standards have been exceeded by this business; therefore, causing the property owner to be violation of the land use code.
Commissioner Gaiter asked Ms. Haag what would happen if the Board did not authorize legal action to be taken by staff if the business was not relocated. Ms. Haag stated that the County Attorney’s Office would have to go before the Board at a later date to receive authorization to initiate legal proceedings. She also assured Commissioner Gaiter that the County Attorney’s Office would not seek legal resolution of the problem unless they had exhausted all other remedies.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners find violations of the Larimer County Land Use and Building Codes exist, require compliance with county regulations, and authorize legal action if deadline set forth by the Commissioners are not met.
In addition, the business is allowed to continue operations at its current location and level of activity until March 31, 2010, while relocating.
Motion carried 3-0.
There being no further business, the Board recessed at 3:30 p.m.
LAND USE HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner. Chair Johnson presided and Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter were present. Also present were: Eric Tracy and Martina Wilkinson, Engineering Department; Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Department; Toby Stauffer and Michelle Yeager, Planning Department; Jeannine Haag and William Ressue, County Attorney’s Office; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
Chair Johnson opened the hearing 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. BINGHAM HILL FARMS SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL, FILE #09-Z1749: This is a request for approval of a Special Review to allow a community hall (events center) and a seasonal camp in a residential area. In addition to the special review, the applicants also seek an appeal to Section 8.6.3.C of the Larimer County Land Use Code, to allow the proposed parking lot to be only partially paved.
The subject prorperty is located off of Bingham Hill Road, ½ mile west of North Overland Trail. Currently, the property is used as a single family residence and a wholesale nursery. With this proposal, the applicant seeks to expand the single family residence to add a gymnasium and add the uses “Seasonal Camp” and “Community Hall” to the property. Both proposed uses would occur in and around the existing residence.
The surrounding area is rural residential and zoned FA-Farming, with agricultural or grazing type uses.
The property has an existing wholesale tree nursery and would continue to function as such with the addition of the two new uses. The property has existing structures and features including, nursery support buildings, a single family residence, storage sheds, a half court gymnasium, and several outdoor areas for weddings or other events.
The seasonal camp is proposed to last 6 to 10 weeks during the summer months and all campers, 20-campers maximum, would stay on site. Camps would last one week per session and all participants would arrive and depart around the same time on the weekends. Camp would run from 6:30 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. and campers would stay in the gym or in tents on site. Restrooms and a kitchen would be constructed to accommodate camp participants.
The Community Hall/Events Center would operate year round during the times when the seasonal camp was not in session. The events center would allow no more than one event per day with a maximum occupancy load of 200-people. Typical events would be corporate retreats, business meetings, weddings, and smaller functions, such as family reunions. Most activities would occur outside, though some activities have the option to be moved inside to the gym. The total number of proposed events is 130-events-per-year. All events would be concluded by 10:00 p.m.
To approve a Special Review application, the County Commissioners must consider review criteria, which includes: compatibility with existing and allowed uses, consistency with the Larimer County Master Plan, ability to comply with all requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code, and the type of impact the use has on others in the area. Staff and the applicant have worked to ensure that this project meets all requirements of the Land Use Code and staff believes the proposed uses could be compatible with the surrounding area.
At a public hearing on December 16, 2009, the Larimer County Planning Commission considered this application for Special Review to add the proposed uses of Seasonal Camp and Community Hall to the existing Single Family Residence and Wholesale Nursery. At that hearing, the Planning Commission heard a statement from the applicant as well as comments from neighbors and supporters of the project. The Planning Commission discussed the compatibility of the project and also the reality of impacts from the additional uses. After review and testimony from neighbors the Planning Commission recommended denial of this project.
After the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant incorporated comments and concerns into a business plan and an outline for the scope of the operation. The current application includes a revised project description that more accurately reflects the realistic plan for the operation of the camp, events center, and nursery. The changes made by the applicant to incorporate neighbor and Planning Commission concerns may lead the Board to believe this project is compatible with the surrounding area.
As part of this Special Review, the applicant submitted a request to appeal the standards of Section 8.6, Off-Road Parking. Originally, the request was an appeal to allow the access drive and parking area to be surfaced in an all weather material instead of asphalt; however, since the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has worked with staff to revise the appeal to request that only a portion of the parking lot be surfaced in asphalt instead of the entire parking lot.
Due to the nature of this application, staff has made their recommendations in two parts:
1. The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Bingham Hill Farms Special Review, file #09-Z1749 subject to the following conditions:
A. This special review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.
B. The site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Bingham Hill Farms Special Review, file #09-Z1749, 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 Bingham Hill Farms Special Review.
C. Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of approval by the Board of Commissioners
D. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.
E. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval, or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, the applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to the county, the county may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to the applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the county’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event the county must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, the applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by the county including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.
F. The county may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.
G. 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.
H. Within 60-days of approval, the applicant must provide confirmation from the water district that water sources can continue to operate in their current capacities for the existing and proposed uses.
I. The proposed uses shall comply with the requirements of the Poudre Valley Fire Authority for adequate fire protection.
J. The applicant/owner shall be limited to no more than 130-events per year with 5-events of up to 200-people or no more than 60-cars; 25-events with 150-people or less; 50-events with 100-people or less, and 50-events of 50-people or less. No more than one event shall occur per day, events will end by 10:00 p.m., and events will not occur during the six to ten week camp season, unless this Special Review is amended by the County Commissioners.
K. The county reserves the right to monitor traffic numbers, which may include requesting records from the applicant/owner pertaining to the number of attendees at each event.
L. The Community Hall use shall be limited to no more than 4-events per week.
M. Due to high bicycle traffic on Bingham Hill Road, the applicant/owner shall coordinate with the Larimer County Engineering Department to provide signage to mitigate vehicle/bicyclist conflicts. Coordination with the Engineering Department shall occur within 30-days of approval and signage shall be in place at a time to be determined by the Engineering Department.
N. The applicant shall submit a revised access and maintenance agreement indicating that all properties have legal access and that the Community Hall (Events Center) use and Seasonal Camp use are allowed to use the access. The agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 30-days of approval.
O. A revised site plan illustrating all changes related to the approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 60-days of County Commissioner approval.
P. The proposed uses and buildings shall meet all Building Code requirements and any building utilized for the proposed uses shall have a Change of Occupancy permit.
Q. Transportation Capital Expansion fees shall be due at the time of Building Permit issuance.
R. One sign advertising the proposed uses will be allowed on the property per Land Use Code Section 10 regulations. A sign will not be allowed at the access point of the property unless additional approval for an off-premise sign is granted by the Board of County Commissioners. A permit will be required for any future sign for the Community Hall or Seasonal Camp use.
2. The Development Services Team recommends approval of the appeal to Section 8.6.3.C subject to the following conditions:
A. The applicant/owner shall pave the access drive and a portion of the parking lot. Any additional parking lot area considered “overflow” parking shall be constructed with an all-weather surface.
B. The applicant may phase construction of the onsite improvements in two phases described as follows:
1. Phase I may include pavement of a 20-foot-wide apron off of Bingham Hill Road to the edge of the right-of-way, construction of the hard surfaced handicap parking spaces with appropriate signage, construction of sidewalks and gravel parking as shown on the proposed site plan. The applicant must apply for a Development Construction Permit for Phase I within 90-days from the date of this approval.
2. Phase II may include submitting for review and approval by the County Engineer, a paving plan (detailing what is to be paved), geotechnical memorandum stamped by a professional engineer including designed pavement cross sections, and a drainage memorandum stamped by a professional engineer stating the need for stormwater detention and/or water quality measures. After approval of the above items by the County Engineer, the applicant must apply for a Development Construction Permit for Phase II. Review and construction of the Phase II improvements must be completed by June 1, 2011.
Chair Johnson questioned Ms. Stauffer about what would become the primary use of the property if the event hall and camp uses were approved. Ms. Stauffer stated that the primary use would remain residential; however, unlike structures, a property can have more than one primary use.
Chair Johnson also questioned how the county would be able to keep track of the number of events on the property and enforce the maximum number of guests per event. Ms. Stauffer stated that if a complaint were received, staff would begin a code compliance investigation. If the applicant was found to be in violation of the conditions of approval, the approval may be revoked.
Commissioner Gaiter asked staff where a sign would be located in order to best serve the property and its potential guests. Ms. Stauffer stated that the sign would need to be located on the applicant’s property unless he received an easement from another property owner to place the sign elsewhere.
Nancy Grice addressed the Board on behalf of the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee to reiterate the Commission’s findings that the proposed use would not be compatible with the area and would cause an adverse impact on surrounding property owners.
Chair Johnson opened the hearing to the applicant.
Randy Pope addressed the Board and explained that the proposed camp and event center are intended to supplement the income his family lost when the economy began to decline. He stated that the primary focus of the land use change would be to allow basketball camps and corporate events on the property, not to become a “wedding factory.” Mr. Pope explained that he has tried to be accommodating to the concerns of his neighbors; however, most are not willing to compromise. Lastly, he explained that the proposed event center use is not a new concept to the neighborhood as four other such facilities exist and operate within a 1.3 mile radius of his property.
Commissioner Donnelly asked Mr. Pope about the existing tree farm and its day-to-day operations. Mr. Pope stated that the tree operation is more of a hobby than a business designed to financially support his family. Mr. Pope also noted that while some of the trees are sold to private buyers, most are delivered to nurseries in the area.
Commissioner Gaiter asked Mr. Pope about his intent for signage to the property. Mr. Pope stated he was confident in his ability to obtain an easement from an adjacent property owner for the placement of a sign. If that was not successful, he would utilize the county’s Tourist Oriented Directional Signs (TODS) program.
Chair Johnson stated that he had an abundance of concerns with the number of events requested and the differing “levels” of events.
Chair Johnson opened the hearing to public comment and Rick Hatman, architect for the applicant, addressed the Board to discuss lighting and noise associated with the proposed uses. Mr. Hatman explained that the applicant proposes to install bollard lighting in the parking area and driveway to minimize light spillage onto other properties, while maintaining a safe environment for guests. To minimize noise impacts on surrounding land owners, the applicant proposes to only allow amplified music inside of the gymnasium and anticipates remaining within all county noise ordinances.
Much discussion ensued regarding possible noise disturbances and the possibility of special review approval being revoked due to noise citations.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing surrounding land owners, addressed the Board and discussed legal issues raised by the special review application. Ms. Liley began with an overview of the property’s history and expressed the displeasure felt by many of surrounding land owners with the Board’s decision to remove a note from the Minor Residential Development (MRD) plat, on October, 12, 2009, without notification. Ms. Liley stated that the proposed uses would not be harmonious or compatible with the surrounding land uses and are not supported by surrounding land owners.
Mr. Lafferty clarified that the process of removing a note from an MRD, via an amendment, was a practice utilized in the county 13 times since the inception of the current Land Use Code. Mr. Lafferty explained to the Board that the Land Use Code requires notice of hearings for amended plats to be posted in the designated posting place. The code does not require notification to be published in newspapers or mailed to affected land owners.
Ken Ecton, Shelby Majors, Dick Spiess, John Schmid, Liz Whitney, Joe Sullivan, and Rebecca Douglas, all surrounding land owners, addressed the Board in opposition to the requested use. Most cited increased noise, traffic, declining property values, and overall disturbance as reasons why the proposed uses could not be compatible or harmonious with the rural nature of their neighborhood.
Lou Kinzii, local realtor, addressed the Board at the request of the applicant. Mr. Kinzii stated he did not believe the proposed uses would impact property values in the neighborhood.
Ryan Brady, owner of Quest for Events, addressed the Board at the request of the applicant. Mr. Brady explained that his business coordinates corporate events/retreats and believed the applicant’s property could become highly successful if the proposed use was allowed.
Mike McMillan, Neil Spencer, Ashley Pope, Reid Pope, Bob Hewitt, and Tom Throgmorton addressed the Board in favor of the application. Mr. and Mrs. Gene Sharp (via letter read by Sheryl Pope) and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau (via letter read by Kelsey Pope) also offered their support of the special review application and proposed uses. Many of the above individuals citied the Pope family’s good nature, sound project proposal, strong business plan, and positive effects on the local economy as reasons for their support.
Chair Johnson opened the hearing to the applicant for rebuttal and Mr. Pope re-addressed the Board. Mr. Pope reiterated his plan to utilize the proposed event center to host mostly corporate events and offered to have hired security present for every event.
To illustrate the large distance from his property to many of the properties owned by individuals who objected to the application, Mr. Pope presented multiple maps to the Board. He also presented a map of nearby properties which are utilized for both residential and business uses. Mr. Pope concluded that the proposed uses would be compatible and harmonious with the neighborhood because many nearby properties are also utilized for business purposes.
Commissioner Gaiter asked Mr. Pope about his existing website and its many references to wedding operations. Mr. Pope stated that the website would be completely re-done if the application were approved; however, due to the nature of business, it would take time to attract camps and corporate events and during that time, the property would probably be utilized primarily for weddings.
Commissioner Gaiter voiced concern about approving the change in use and the possibility of Mr. Pope then selling his property. Mr. Pope stated that he did not have any plans to sell his property and would agree to a condition limiting the proposed commercial uses to the Pope family, which would effectively prevent any outside parties from operating commercial ventures from the property, if sold.
Chair Johnson closed public comment and opened the hearing to Commissioner discussions. Much conversation ensued between the Board and staff.
Commissioner Donnelly thanked the Pope Family for their dedication to their neighborhood and their contributions to the community. He stated that while he was philosophically inclined to support the proposed uses, he was not convinced the uses would be compatible or harmonious with the neighborhood; therefore, he did not support approval of the special review application.
Commissioner Gaiter stated that while a change in use on the property would impact surrounding property owners, he was confident that approval of the application could be conditioned in a manner that would mitigate many inconveniences, and therefore, supported approval of the application. Commissioner Gaiter complimented the Pope Family on their familial success and willingness to give back to their community and encouraged all of the surrounding landowners to be good neighbors and friends regardless of the hearing’s outcome.
Chair Johnson also complimented the Pope Family on their dedication to the neighborhood and contributions to the community. He stated that due to the number of proposed events and guests, combined with the lack of support from surrounding land owners, the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee, and the Larimer County Planning Commission, he did not believe the proposed uses would be compatible or harmonious with the area; therefore, he did not support approval of the special review application.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Donnelly moved that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Bingham Hill Farms Special Review and Appeal, file #09-Z1749.
Motion carried 2-1, Commissioner Gaiter dissenting.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2010
The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. with Carol Block, Finance Services Director. Chair Pro-Tem Donnelly presided and Commissioner Gaiter was present. Also present were: Donna Hart and Deni LaRue, Commissioners’ Office; Gary Buffington and Lori Smith, Department of Natural Resources; and Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment today.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 25, 2010:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the week of January 25, 2010.
Motion carried 2-0.
3. REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 8, 2010: Ms. Hart reviewed the upcoming agenda with the Board.
4. CONSENT AGENDA:
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consent agenda as follows:
ABATEMENTS: As proposed by the County Assessor, the following Petition for Abatement was presented for approval: Bliss Med Spa, Medical Center of the Rockies, and Bee Land Inc.
02022010A001 FIRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
02022010A002 SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TIMBERLINE RESOURCES SPECIAL REVIEW FILE #02-Z1432 BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES, AND HAWKEYE RANCH INVESTMENT GROUP LLC
0202010A003 AGREEMENT FOR RECEIPT OF COURT SECURITY GRANT FUNDS BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLORADO JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
02022010A004 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR 2010 WEST FOSSIL CREEK REHABILITATION PROJECT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND GERRARD EXCAVATING INC
02022010A005 STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES FOR DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE GRANT CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF CHILD WELFARE
MISCELLANEOUS: Larimer County Treasurer’s Six Month Report.
LIQUOR LICENSES: The following license was approved and issued: Masonville Store – 3.2% Beer Retail – Masonville.
Motion carried 2-0.
5. RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF SENIOR RANGER POSITION: Mr. Buffington addressed the Board and requested the re-establishment of a Senior Ranger position within the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Buffington explained that the position would be funded entirely by revenue collected from the sales of park permits and passes. Ms. Smith noted that because of the memorandum of understanding between the Bureau of Reclamation, the revenue generated from these sales must utilized specifically on lands owned by the Bureau; therefore, a Senior Ranger would be a proficient utilization of these funds.
Commissioner Gaiter questioned Mr. Buffington about the benefits of a Senior Ranger. Mr. Buffington explained that without a Senior Ranger, the county would have to hire additional Junior Rangers and seasonal employees. Also, Senior Rangers provide vital instruction and invaluable assistance to junior Rangers.
Chair Pro-Tem Donnelly asked Mr. Buffington if the Senior Ranger position was new or if it had previously existed. Mr. Buffington stated that the position had previously existed and been filled; however, the prior Senior Ranger had been appointed to another position.
After some discussion, Chair Pro-Tem Donnelly and Commissioner Gaiter concluded that there was no disadvantage to hiring a Senior Ranger, nor would there be any additional burden placed on tax payers; therefore, they supported the request.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the addition of one Senior Ranger, a full-time employee position, to the Department of Natural Resources.
Motion carried 2-0.
6. WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD RESTRUCTURING RESOLUTION AND APPOINTMENTS OF A NEW BOARD: Chair Pro-Tem Donnelly noted that Ms. Friedman was unable to attend the meeting but had spoken in depth with Chair Johnson, the Commissioner liaison to the Workforce Investment Board, regarding this request. Information had also been provided by Ms. Friedman to the entire board; therefore, the request would not require a presentation.
Suggested appointments are as follows: Pamalyn Allen, Cindy Barnes, Jessica Brown, Cynthia Christie, Maury Dobbie, Kathy Gilliland, Deborah Hasler, Ann Hutchinson, Jeff Koenig, Ryan Lennartson, Kathy Louderback, Mike Masciola, Yvonne Myers, Kathy Olson, Mike Reiff, Miki Roth, Preety Sathe, Carol Steinbock, Kory Stolte, Bonnie Trowbridge, and Julie Zinn Patti were appointed to one year terms ending on June 30, 2011.
Phyllis Abt, Joshua Birks, Bradley Buum, Bob Colmenares, Kathryn Gaasvig, Betsy Hale, Anne McDonald, Darcy McClure, Tracy Mead, Jim Neubecker, Jo Dawn Newton, Cathy Schelly, and Marija Weeden-Osborn were appointed to two-year terms ending on June 30, 2012.
M O T I O N
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve dissolution of the current Workforce Investment Board and approve the appointment of the new board members as listed above.
Motion carried 3-0.
7. COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board detailed their attendance at events during the previous week.
8. LEGAL MATTERS: There were no legal matters today.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:30 a.m.
STEVE JOHNSON, CHAIR
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CLERK AND RECORDER
Melissa Lohry, Deputy Clerk