Loveland Bike Trail
 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1994

SUBDIVISIONS

(#457, #458 & 460)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:00 a.m. in regular session with John Barnett, Director of Planning. Chair Duvall presided; Commissioners Disney and Hotchkiss were present. Also present were: Jerry White, Zoning Administrator; Carol Evans, Planner; Rex Burns, Engineering; Jerry Blehm, Environmental Health; and Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Mr. Barnett noted that the Planning Commission has requested that the item Town of Estes Park Intergovernmental Agreement be tabled until March 28, 1994.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board table the Town of Estes Park Intergovernmental Agreement (#94-RA0405) until March 28, 1994, as requested by the Larimer County Planning Commission.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

Mr. Barnett stated that the following are consent items and will not be discussed in detail unless requested by the Commissioners or members of the audience.

1. MALCHOW MINOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (#93-EX0382):

NW 27-04-69; SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF

COUNTY ROAD 6 AND U.S. HIGHWAY 287; 156.31 ACRES;

2 LOTS; FA-1 FARMING ZONING (O2-28-94)

This is a request to divide a vacant 156 acre parcel into 2 lots of 3.84 acres and 152.47 acres for single family dwellings. Staff Findings include: 1) The proposed Malchow MRD appears to be consistent with requirements for Minor Residential Developments, with existing development in the area and with the "urban reserve" land use designation; 2) Under current regulations, this property could be divided into 4 lots of 35+ acres with no county review; 3) Approval of this request, with the conditions noted, should not adversely impact provision of services or transportation, adjacent properties or the environment.

Staff Recommendation is for approval of the Malchow Minor Residential Development, with the following conditions: 1) Additional right-of-way for County Road 6 must be dedicated on the Final Plat. Right-of-way for U.S. Highway 287 (170' west of centerline) must be reserved on the Final Plat; 2) The Final Plat shall note that any further division of Lot 1 requires approval of a subdivision by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners. This restriction includes division into 35 acre or larger lots; 3) The developer is responsible for installation of one fire hydrant per specifications of the Berthoud Fire Protection District. Written acceptance of the hydrant from the Fire District must be submitted prior to Final Plat recording; 4) The developer is responsible for any improvements required to Little Thompson Water District facilities in order to serve this property. Fees required by the Water District shall be paid prior to recording the Final Plat; written verification of payment must be submitted to the Planning Department; 5) The developer shall work with the Colorado Department of Transportation to determine if relocation or improvement of any existing access to Highway 287 is needed. If needed, access locations can be shown on the Final Plat; 6) School fees of $8 per lot shall be paid prior to Final Plat recording; 7) All easements and right-of-ways of record or requested by utility or ditch companies shall be dedicated on the Final Plat; 8) In addition to any notes stated above, the following conditions shall be included on the Final Plat: a) Larimer County Park Fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for each new dwelling on these lots; b) The County Road Impact Fee of $2,641 shall be collected at building permit issuance for these lots; c) Access permits are required for access to County Road 6, access permits from the Colorado Department of Transportation are required for any access onto U.S. Highway 287; d) The Dry Creek Lateral Ditch crosses this property and the Ditch Company has the right to access to and along the ditch for maintenance, cleaning and water deliveries; e) The results of a radon detection test conducted after the residential structure is enclosed must be submitted to the Planning Department. Test results are required before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for new residences on these lots; f) Engineered footings and foundation plans are required for all construction on these lots. Shoring or bracing of utility trenches is recommended during construction; g) A drainage plan must be submitted at building permit application for new residential structures on these lots.

2. SPRINGFIELD COURT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (#93-MS0285):

NE 1/4 33-07-69; WEST SIDE OF TAFT HILL ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 19,

1/4 MILE SOUTH OF HORSETOOTH ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 40);

4.2 ACRES; 64 DWELLING UNITS; M-MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONING

(02-28-94).

This is a request for Preliminary Phase Plan to allow 64 residential PUD units on a 4.2 acre parcel; targeting low-income families. Staff Findings are: 1) The proposed Preliminary Phase Plan is consistent with the approved Master Plan for Springfield Court PUD and the zoning of the site; 2) Approval of the proposed Springfield Court PUD, with the following conditions, will not result in any significant negative impacts on the surrounding properties, utility services, transportation facilities or the natural environment.

The Staff/Urban Growth Area Review Board Recommendations are for Approval of the Preliminary Phase Plan for Springfield Court PUD, with the following conditions: 1) The Final Plat shall be completed in strict conformance with the conditionally approved Preliminary Phase Plan; 2) Before the Final Plat is approved, the applicant shall provide construction plans signed by the Fort Collins Utilities Department, the Fire Department, and the County Engineer. The Final Plat and construction plans shall include easements requested by the utility providers; 3) The Final Plat application shall include a Final Drainage Plan approved by the County Engineer; 4) The Final Plat application shall include a Final Landscaping Plan consistent with the Preliminary Plan, with species identified and a 3' minimum berm along Taft Hill Road; 5) The Final Plat shall be titled as detailed above and shall be accompanied by a letter stating approval of the Amended Plat by the owner of Lot 1, Springfield Recreational Center PUD 2nd Filing; and Approval of the off-site road waiver request, with the following conditions: 1) Adjacent and off-site improvements proposed by the developer in the waiver request shall be provided; 2) The UGA waiver fee shall be collected at the time of Final Plat approval.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff/Urban Growth Area Review Board Recommendations and approve the Malchow Minor Residential Development (#93-EX0382) and the Springfield Court Planned Unit Development (#93-MS0285); each, with the conditions as outlined above.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

3. GILL SPECIAL REVIEW (#93-ZR0333): SE 1/4 15-05-69; SW CORNER

OF 8TH AND TAFT IN LOVELAND (1402 WEST 8TH STREET);

11,520 SQUARE FEET; FA-FARMING ZONING (02-28-94)

This is a request for Special Review to allow a pet grooming shop in an existing house and shop building on the property. Staff Findings include: 1) The proposal is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, County Land Use Plan, and Intergovernmental Agreements with Loveland; 2) The proposal is harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood, and will have no impact on land uses or property values in the area; 3) Under the conditions noted, the proposal will not affect the public health, safety, welfare or prosperity.

Linda Gill, applicant, stated that in order to address the limited parking in front of the facility and the safety concern, a traffic engineer was hired to do an analysis study and submit a proposed plan, the result of which is the limited number of clients to be seen in a day. Also, Ms. Gill noted that her business will be by appointment only to discourage people from dropping in without an appointment.

Mr. White stated that this item was a consent item when it went before the Planning Commission, but from the beginning Staff has been concerned about the access; however, when the Planning Commission added the condition that one employee, other than the property owner, shall be allowed, Staff changed their recommendation to denial of this request, as the traffic plan was based on the owner being the only employee at this facility. Ms. Gill responded that the other employee will not be a groomer and will be hired only to answer the phone. Discussion followed and Condition #1 of the Planning Commission's Recommendation for Approval of the Special Review was amended as follows: 1) Only one non-grooming employee, other than the property owner, shall be allowed. This additional employee shall not utilize on-site parking; 2) Access and parking shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the Traffic Analysis by Matt Delich and requirements of County Engineering, including paving and marking. No vehicles will be permitted to back onto Taft Avenue. If Taft Avenue is widened, or if traffic generated by this business, creates a hazard for motorists on Taft Avenue at any future time, Larimer County may consider revocation of this Special Review; 3) Signage must comply with present and future County sign requirements; 4) Property must connect to public sewer at such time as either of the existing septic systems fail; 5) Prior to occupation of the building, the owner must obtain a building permit and provide a signed annexation agreement to the Planning Department; 6) Within 60 days, owner must provide for County approval a landscaping plan which addresses the concern of the County Forester. Implementation of the plan must occur by May 1, 1994; 7) No pet boarding or commercial breeding allowed. A maximum of 6 client dogs allowed on the site at one time, and no more than three personal pets. All client animals must be contained inside the building; 8) No retail sales allowed, except incidental sales to grooming customers. No advertising, signage, or other promotion which would encourage walk-in business; 9) All development, operation, and use of the site shall be consistent with Zoning File Exhibit A (Application for Zoning Action dated September 20, 1993), unless otherwise modified by the above conditions.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation, with conditions as amended, and approve the Gill Special Review (#93-ZR0333).

Motion carried 3 - 0.

4. CASHMERE DOWNS (#93-SU0293): SE 1/4 33-04-69 & SW 34-09-60;

WEST OF HORSESHOE PARK SUBDIVISION, 1/2 MILE WEST OF

U.S. HIGHWAY 287 ON THE LARIMER-BOULDER COUNTY LINE;

78.58 ACRES; 25 LOTS; FA 1-FARMING ZONING (02-28-94)

This is a request to divide 78.58 acres into 24 lots of 2.3 acres to 4.7 acres for single family dwellings and 11.58 acres of open space. Staff Findings include: 1) The soils data submitted indicate that the proposed development marginally meets the minimum requirements of the Larimer County Water, Sewer and Fire Safety Standards regarding use of standard vs. engineered septic systems. There are concerns in this area regarding shallow bedrock, slow perc rates and groundwater levels; 2) Larimer County's ability to assist property owners by forming Special Improvement Districts in the event of failure of septic systems is very limited. Special Improvement Districts are now required to be approved in a county-wide vote; 3) The Colorado Division of Wildlife has stated concerns because of significant use of this area by wintering eagles. Mitigation by providing open space and building setbacks will help to address impacts; 4) The proposed development appears to be consistent with the current land use designation and with the existing development and character of this area; 5) This proposed development would take access via public streets and right of way in Horseshoe Park Subdivision to U.S. Highway 287. The Colorado Department of Transportation has planned improvements to Highway 287 scheduled for 1997-1998 which will help to improve current access/traffic conditions in this area; 6) Property owners in Horseshoe Park have expressed concerns with the current access situation at U. S. Highway 287 and the potential for increased problems if additional vehicles are added without improvements. Additional concerns were expressed regarding wildlife, septic systems and impacts on services; 7) Approval of the proposed development when the site marginally meets the minimum County standard for use of septic systems may result in negative impacts on the environment and other properties in the area. Approval of the proposed development without the U.S. Highway 287 improvements completed may be premature and may have a negative impact on transportation in the area. Therefore, the Staff Recommendation is for Denial of the Preliminary Plat of Cashmere Downs Subdivision. The Larimer County Planning Commission met on February 16, 1994 and recommended Approval of a variance from the Larimer County standard for dead-end road length for Ayers Court, and Approval of the Preliminary Plat of Cashmere Downs Subdivision, with eighteen conditions and seven notes to be placed on the Final Plat.

Mr. Jim Martell, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board and requested several changes to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Schuetze, applicant, reviewed the history of the property, described the big picture proposed for the farm, and noted they have entered into a ten-year agreement with the Soil Conservation Service Great Plains Program to upgrade the existing farm. Bob Schuetze, submitted maps of the farm; he stated they have met with the neighbors and have made changes from the original concept of the area in an attempt to mitigate some of their concerns. They have agreed to plant over 1,000 trees, will pave the entire Horseshoe Circle out to Highway 287 (1 mile), addressed wildlife concerns, etc. Dave Shupe, Engineer, discussed some of the technical issues, such as the septic system, fire protection, and roads; the developer intends to form a Homeowner's Association which will be responsible for maintaining the open space at the west end and for road maintenance within the subdivision. Walkways will be provided for the children to the school bus stops and a trail provided to the open space.

Ms. Evans reviewed the major concerns and issues and noted that Staff is still concerned with the use of septic systems at this site, the negative impact on the environment, and believes that this development is premature due to the traffic concerns of Highway 287.

At this time, public testimony was received by the following persons in opposition to the granting of this request: Bob McCardy, Joe Bisagno, Jean Harden, and Gerald Waltlow. They acknowledged that the applicant has designed a beautiful subdivision, but they proposed other sites and alternatives which would not impact them so greatly. For example, if a bridge was constructed across the Little Thompson River and the subdivision was built in the northeast part of the farm, it would eliminate the mile of the proposed paved road, to which the seventeen horse owners in Horseshoe Park Subdivision have objections, and be less costly for the applicant. These residents are also concerned about the increased traffic and speed on the proposed road and enforcement of same; they cited their concerns for the wildlife in the area, adequacy of soil for septics, lack of water pressure, impact on the Berthoud Schools, increased taxes resulting from increased value of homes because of the paved road, etc. It was noted that if this subdivision is approved, it will forever change Horseshoe Park Subdivision. Mr. Schuetze responded that other alternatives have been explored for location of the subdivision and would have a much greater impact on the wildlife. Mr. Martell summarized the testimony noting that most of the concerns of the opponents have been addressed and stated that it is not this subdivision which makes Highway 287 a problem or a hazard. Mr. Martell noted that this subdivision is consistent with the land use plan, the zoning, and with the surrounding development, and achieves a goal that is beneficial to the County. Mr. Schuetze indicated his willingness to work with Staff with regard to the possibility of a conservation easement on his land.

Diane Pelter, Gary Rulon, Gary Irwin, Chris Dwyer, and Doug Spearismith addressed the Board in favor of Cashmere Downs, noting it is a quality subdivision and this type of subdivision is in great demand; the subdivision, as proposed, is a rare opportunity to preserve wildlife. After lengthy discussion, the Board concurred that this request is a complex issue and there are too many unanswered questions; the request is premature and approval at this time will add to problems which already exist. The Board suggested that the applicant and Staff continue to work on this request and consider the possibility of a conservation easement because the applicant has proposed a quality subdivision with many good ideas. Mr. Schuetze indicated his willingness to work with Staff to explore the possibility of a conservation easement on his land.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board adopt the Staff Findings and Staff Recommendation and deny the Cashmere Downs (#93-SU0293) request.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1994

PUBLIC WORKS STANDING MEETING

(#461)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular session with Rex Smith, Director of Public Works. Chair Duvall presided; Commissioners Disney and Hotchkiss were present. Also present were: Dick Anderson, Director Facilities Management; Joshua Zander, Custodial Services Manager; Glen Rathgeber, Social Services Administrative Manager; and Bill Gordon, County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. FACILITIES - 1/2 FTE FOR YOUTH S.A.F.E.: During the Public Works Meeting on February 13, 1994, the Board directed Mr. Zander to explore the possibility of working out a cooperative plan with Foothills Gateway for custodial services at Youth S.A.F.E. Today, Mr. Rathgeber outlined the concerns and reasons for not entering into this arrangement and recommended that the Board approve Social Services contracting with Larimer County Custodial Services for custodial services at Youth S.A.F.E. CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to approve the request for one half-time Facilities Employee for the Youth S.A.F.E. Facility, as requested by Mr. Zander on February 13, 1994.

2. WELLINGTON SHOP REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACT: Mr. Smith reminded the Board that in July 1993 the Board signed a contract authorizing reimbursement of $28,140.97 from the State for remediation work completed at the Wellington Site. However, the County Attorney's Office reviewed the contract as to form and disagreed with some of the wording in the contract and payment has been withheld. Mr. Smith requested Board approval of the changes in the contract and the Chair's initialing of same. CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD was to authorize the Chair to initial the changes made by the County Attorney in Contract 93-36, dated July 7, 1993.

3. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SITE REMEDIATION WORK: Mr. Smith requested Board approval and the Chair's signature on three proposals to proceed with remediation work at Wellington ($20,000), Shields ($12,000), and Vine ($17,500). Mr. Smith described the work to be completed at each site. Monies for the remediation work will be derived from the Capital Expenditures Fund and any reimbursement will be returned to the Capital Expenditures Fund upon receipt.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve, and the Chair sign, the three proposals authorizing the remediation of the Wellington, Shields, and Vine Sites; funds for this remediation work will be derived from the Capital Expenditures Fund and any reimbursement will be refunded to same.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

4. STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) UPDATE: Mr. Smith reported that STIP does not have adequate funds to complete all the projects in their 5-year transportation improvement plan; therefore adjustments have been made to the plan. Mr. Smith described the projects which impact Larimer County and noted which ones were postponed and which ones did not change. Mr. Smith asked the Board if they would like to meet with Doug Rames, District 4 Engineer for Colorado Department of Transportation, to discuss these changes; the Board indicated their desire to meet with Mr. Rames at least once a year to discuss the projects scheduled for Larimer County and asked Mr. Smith to make arrangements for this meeting.

5. DISCUSSION OF MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:

-- Mr. Smith noted that he just received a Larimer County Transportation Plan Proposal; copies will be made and sent to the Commissioners and this proposal will answer many questions for the Board. Mr. Smith agreed to work with Chair Duvall in setting up a process for identifying transportation costs and benefits to the County, as she stated she does not want to continue operating without more information on this matter. Chair Duvall requested that a meeting be scheduled with Mr. Smith and the Sheriff to discuss the relationship of development to the service costs of the County and to determine if the Sheriff needs to be brought into the circle of development review. After further discussion, Mr. Gordon was directed to schedule a meeting with the Sheriff to discuss his needs and the impact of development on the Sheriff's Department's service costs..

-- Mr. Smith reported on a meeting he had with John Daggett, City of Fort Collins Transfort Operation Director, regarding what is needed to develop a transit development plan for the MPO and the rest of the County by 1996 to the year 2000. Mr. Smith noted that the County has some obligation financially to participate in the planning of the MPO. Loveland and Larimer County each need to come up with $12,000 in 1994-95 for our share; application can be made for available State funds and, if granted, Larimer County would be responsible for $6,000 in matching funds. Mr. Daggett also indicated the need for a transit development plan to be developed for the upper front range area and he feels that the County should develop a policy which establishes Care-A-Van as a provider, not a policy maker. Mr. Smith will schedule a meeting with Mr. Daggett to meet with the Board to present an overview of the situation.

Commissioner Disney suggested that when the North Front Range Transportation Draft Plan is presented to the Board, the Berthoud Town Council be included for a joint presentation. Also, he recommended that during one of the Board's Policy Worksessions that a discussion of information received from the Colorado Department of Transportation be held to update and inform the Board on future statewide transportation plans.

The meeting recessed at 10:45 a.m.



COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS QUARTERLY MEETING

(#462)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 10:50 a.m. in regular session with Paul Cooper, Director of Community Corrections. Chair Duvall presided; Commissioners Disney and Hotchkiss presided. Also present were Steve Schapanski, Advisory Board Chairman, and Bill Gordon, County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. 1993 PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES: Mr. Cooper reviewed the 1993 Performance Outcome Indicators, Goals, and Actual Percentages achieved for Community Service, Family Emergency Team, Community Supervision and Court Services for non-residential adults, and for residential clients. During discussion, Chair Duvall suggested that Mr. Cooper attend the meeting with the Board and the Sheriff when they discuss response times; and she asked if there will be some way to measure outcomes if we get into the Cities in Schools Program; Mr. Cooper answered affirmatively.

2. BYLAW REVISIONS: Mr. Gordon reported he had a long meeting with Assistant County Attorney Mike Abrams yesterday concerning revisions to the Community Corrections Advisory Board Bylaws; Mr. Abrams will be sending out a memo shortly recognizing that the Board of County Commissioners is the decision-making and governing body, and they delegate responsibility to the Advisory Board; Mr. Schapanski concurred with the revisions to the Bylaws.

3. DAY REPORTING CENTER: Mr. Cooper stated that numerous local and state agencies are encouraging the opening of a Day Reporting Center which will provide a structured non-residential program consisting of supervision and treatment services where offenders can come into continuous contact with their supervisors. Mr. Cooper presented a proposed budget and requested authorization from the Board to use the funds from the existing fund balance for start up of the Center and noted that if the Center is not self supporting within six months, they will seriously consider its discontinuance. In the future, revenue for the Reporting Center will be derived from State funds and fees collected from clients, which will be referrals from other agencies; initial staffing will consist of 2 full-time employees. Commissioner Disney suggested that Domestic Violence offenders also be included as clients, and Chair Duvall asked how this service can be tied in with other services being proposed in the County.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board authorize the use of approximately $45,000 from the existing fund balance in Community Corrections for start-up costs for the Day Reporting Center for a six-month period.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

4. FACILITIES - LAUREL STREET, OAK STREET OFFICE & WEST MOUNTAIN BUILDING: Mr. Cooper described the existing over-crowded situations in the following three Community Correction Facilities which may require future action: 1) 502 West Laurel Street - consideration of possibility for adding on to the existing building to create additional office and resident space; 2) 315 West Oak Street - Lease expires May 1 - consideration of a two-year extension; 3) 419 West Mountain Avenue - additional contract supported staff has created crowding at YSB and if youth programming continues as a priority at the state and local level, larger facilities will be needed. Mr. Cooper indicated their interest and willingness to relocate at the Detention Center Site, at some point in time, in a building designed to meet their needs.

5. JUVENILE TRANSPORT COSTS: As discussed previously with the Board, actual 1993 costs for transporting youth to detention in Brighton exceeded available state grant monies. Under the present system, funds come to Youth Services and are transferred to the Sheriff's Department monthly; due to overtime for off-duty deputies doing the transporting, these overtime salaries have become a drain on operating funds. Mr. Cooper noted that a meeting will be scheduled with the Sheriff to discuss alternatives to alleviate this financial drain on juvenile transporting costs.

The meeting recessed at 11:30 a.m.

WORKSESSION REGARDING THE INTERNAL SURVEY

(#460 @ 1900, #462 @ 3100 & #461 @ 4600)

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:00 p.m. for a worksession on the Internal Survey. Chair Duvall presided; Commissioners Disney and Hotchkiss were present. Also present were the following Internal Survey Committee Members: Len Bammer, Bobby Cullor, Frank Lancaster, Dana Klausmeyer, Ralph Jacobs; and Bill Gordon, County Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Mr. Bammer prefaced the meeting by noting that Mr. Katers of CSU is working on the final stages of the draft of the Executive Summary of the Internal Survey and if the Board and Committee arrive at any conclusions today, they can be forwarded to Mr. Katers and included in the draft.

Mr. Gordon informed the Board that previous to this meeting he sent out a memo to the Committee Members suggesting they review each question on the Survey and mark each question according to their perspective of what they thought the employee response would be and then compare their answer to the actual responses. After starting through the list of each question on the Internal Survey, and asking for each Committee Member's expectations and actual employee responses, the process was taking too much time and so they decided to just concentrate on the responses which indicated concerns and dissatisfaction with the employees; such as, compensation, stress, promotional opportunities, morale, etc. After discussion of each of these issues, it was determined what action the Board will take to respond to the employees about the issue. Discussion also ensued regarding the rewording of some of the questions on the next Internal Survey in an attempt to clarify the questions and elicit a more measurable response.

Mr. Bammer noted that there were eighty-one pages of comments attached to the Internal Survey and he will ask CSU how much it will cost for them to review these pages and screen the remarks to protect anonymity. Also, Mr. Bammer offered to do the calculations of the individual survey sheets, which the Committee Members completed, to figure the percentages of "What they expected", "What they desired" and "What they Received". Mr. Bammer will prepare a synopsis of today's meeting to be given at the next Department Head Meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1994

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

(#463)

The Board of County Commissioners met at 9:30 a.m. in regular session with Bill Gordon, County Administrator. Chair Duvall presided; Commissioners Disney and Hotchkiss were present. Also present were: Russ Ragsdale, Chief Deputy Clerk & Recorder's Office; Alison Denk & Tom Gould of Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.; Brent Nittmann, Manager Youth Services; Rena Mackrill, Director Human Development; Carol Gillespie, Director Community Development; Lois Muehlbauer, Human Development Specialist; Patty Arnett, Business Manager Health Department; and Ralph Jacobs, Personnel Director. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

1. PRESENTATION REGARDING GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) BY MISS ALISON DENK: Mr. Ragsdale stated that the purpose of today's meeting is to bring the Board up to date on the status of GIS and provide them with an opportunity to ask questions, have input, and give direction regarding GIS. Ms. Denk noted that her firm was hired to assist the County in looking at the potential of using the GIS - the idea of which is to manage spatial information and provide the tools to manage the volume of information. They will be focusing on seven departments in the County: Planning and Zoning, Road & Bridge, Engineering, Clerk & Recorder, Assessor, Sheriff, and Information Management and will also be considering the needs of other potential users in the County. They will be doing a needs assessment and implementation for the County and will be considering Staff needs, procedural needs, data needs, and also looking at collective needs and different hardware and software. Ms. Denk stated that the first part of the needs assessment report will be a conceptual design for the County; the second part will be to figure out how to make it real and implementable; first looking at the total desired, then phasing it down to a fiscally constrained approach. Ms. Denk noted that the interviews with the different departments in the County will be completed this week and the report will be presented to the Board the middle of May.

Questions from the Board followed; Commissioner Hotchkiss stated he is interested in knowing the cost/benefit ratio of implementing GIS and Commissioner Disney asked them to identify cost-savings results.

2. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE AND SUPPORT OF A GOAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES BY THE LARIMER COUNTY CULTURAL DIVERSITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Mr. Nittmann presented the Goal Statement and Objectives of the Larimer County Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee and requested acceptance and support of same from the Board.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board approve and support the Goal Statement and Objectives of the Larimer County Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE ESTES PARK FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CENTER PLANNING GRANT: The Board was requested to approve an application for a Family Development Center Planning Grant, Level I. Ms. Muehlbauer noted that the focus of the program is to encourage communities to co-locate comprehensive services to clients of human services under one roof, as clients make more efficient and effective use of human services in a setting where there is maximum opportunity for coordination. If approved, this planning grant provides an opportunity for Larimer County to explore the feasibility of developing such a Center in Estes Park; these Centers have proven to be most feasible in small mountain or rural communities. It was noted that these grant funds are Federal monies and if, at some time in the future, they advance to Level II, the Organizing Committee will have to include representation from the Board, and the Directors of Social Services, Human Development, and Mental Health Departments.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board approve the application for a Family Development Center Planning Grant, Level I, for the Estes Park Family Development Center.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A 1.79 FTE FOR THE WIC SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING PROGRAM: Ms. Arnett stated that the Colorado Department of Health has awarded Larimer County an increase in caseload in the Women, Infant & Children (WIC) Supplemental Feeding Program from 2900 to 3500. In order to serve this expansion, 1.79 FTE is needed--a .4 Nutritionist and 1.39 Program Worker II. Ms. Arnett requested approval of this additional 1.79 FTE and noted that, as always, if funding is decreased, the positions will be eliminated. Ms. Arnett requested the Chair to sign Personnel Action Forms for 2.25 FTE, as previously an additional percentage FTE was allocated by the State and is being converted to the WIC program.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve the request for an additional 2.25 FTE for the WIC Supplemental Feeding Program.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

5. WORKSESSION:

-- Mr. Gordon noted that two years ago, an .88 position in the Sheriff's Department was vacated and a new employee was hired as a 1.0 FTE; however, the appropriate paperwork to change the FTE was not generated. As recommended by the Personnel Department and the Sheriff's Department, the Board is requested to authorize change in the staffing document for position #SHE50005 from .88 FTE to 1.0 FTE.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Board approve the change in the staffing document for position #SHE50005 increasing it from .88 FTE to 1.0 FTE.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

-- Mr. Gordon informed the Board that Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 26-9-102 limits the term of office for a Veteran's Service Officer for two years and, after that period of time, the Board either appoints a new Veteran's Service Officer or reappoints the current Officer. Ms. Stevens, the current Veteran's Service Officer, has indicated her desire for reappointment for another two years and this action is being requested today.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board reappoint Diana Stevens as Veteran's Service Officer for another two years, term ending April 1, 1996.

Motion carried 3 - 0.






6. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS - ADMINISTRATIVE:

-- Commissioner Disney received a call from the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce asking the County to purchase some tickets for $30 apiece to help underwrite a seminar on "Gangs - A Focus on Reality" to be held at the Lincoln Center on Wednesday, April 6, 1994; our contribution will provide tickets for clients of social service agencies, which would otherwise be unable to attend. Commissioner Hotchkiss suggested that the Board buy ten tickets for this seminar.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board of County Commissioners buy ten tickets at $30 apiece, from the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, for the "Gangs - A Focus on Reality" Seminar on April 6, 1994; monies to be derived from the Commissioner's Special Projects Fund.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

-- Commissioner Disney noted that information has been received from the Rockies Baseball Club regarding group discounts for the 1994 baseball season; as this County- sponsored event for employees and their families was very successful last year, it was recommended that the Board sponsor the event again. After discussion of the available dates for the event, July 19, 1994 with the Chicago Cubs was chosen as the date for this year.

-- Commissioner Hotchkiss stated that he will be attending his good friend Bill Campton's funeral tomorrow and will be the representative for the Board.

-- Chair Duvall reported on the Regional Planning Meeting she attended recently with Ann Azari, Mayor of Fort Collins, Jack Miller of CSU, and Jim Cox carrying forward with the "Growth Management Conference" recently held on regional planning. It was suggested that a Futures Institute be formed and include a planner from both Weld and Larimer County and Fort Collins and Loveland and Greeley to work on obtaining funding and regional planning. Part of their vision will be to preserve agriculture land in Larimer County and include involvement of businesses, educational institutions, as well as government. Mr. Miller is working on funding and a brainstorming session will be scheduled soon.

7. DOCUMENT REVIEW: The following documents, of a routine nature, were considered by the Board:






M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board approve the Minutes for the week of February 21, 1994, and the Agendas for the weeks of March 7 & 14, 1994, as submitted.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board approve an Amended Drake Exemption and Barella Boundary Line Adjustment.

Motion carried 3 - 0.

LIQUOR LICENSES: County Approval was granted to Aspen Lodge - 6% - Estes Park, CO. Licenses were issued to: Sundance Steak House & Country Club - 6% WITH EXTENDED HOURS - Fort Collins, CO; City Park Liquors - 6% - Fort Collins, CO; Branding Iron Liquor, Inc. - 6% - LaPorte, CO; Gasamat No. 110 - 3.2% - Fort Collins, CO; Metro Oil Co., Inc. - Total #2743 - 3.2% - Loveland, CO.

M O T I O N

Commissioner Disney moved that the Board approve the following documents:

A94-44 AGREEMENT CONCERNING ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON

COUNTY ROADS 30 AND 11 BETWEEN THE BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND REINHOLT J.

SCHNEIDER (Project #180)

A94-45 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LARIMER

COUNTY (1994 Human Resource Funding Agreement)

A94-46 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND B.A.S.E. CAMP (Same as Above)

A94-47 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND HOUSE OF NEIGHBORLY SERVICE

(1994 Human Resource Funding Agreement)

A94-48 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND RESPITE CARE (Same as Above)

A94-49 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND YOUTH EMPIRE (Same as Above)

C94-04 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AND DON KEHN CONSTRUCTION, INC.

(Reconstruction of County Roads 11, 11C and 30 from CR 28 to

CR 32 - Project #167/180)

Motion carried 3 - 0.

The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m.



____________________________________

JANET S. DUVALL, CHAIR

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

( S E A L )

ATTEST:


______________________________________

Sherry E. Graves, Deputy County Clerk


















MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF FIRMS INTERESTED IN THE

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #94-08 FOR COUNTY

GOVERNMENTAL & JUSTICE FACILITIES NEED ANALYSIS

(#464)

A mandatory pre-proposal conference was held on Friday, March 11, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioner's Hearing Room. Dick Anderson, Director Facilities Management, chaired the meeting; also present were Patrice Luehring, Purchasing Department Buyer II, and Scott Courtney, Judicial Administrator. Recording Clerk, S. Graves.

Mr. Anderson noted that copies of the Request for Proposal for Proposal #94-08 and copies of an Addendum #1 are available at the podium. Mr. Anderson also instructed the attendees at today's meeting to sign in on the sign-in sheet because it is a requirement that every firm submitting a proposal must be in attendance at this pre-bid conference. Mr. Anderson reviewed the questions and answers included on Addendum #1, and indicated a few changes in the original RFP; such as on Page 5 - Omit Small Claims Court from the list of services to occupy space in the Court facility and add Municipal Court, and on Page 10 - Add Pre-Planning Expertise and Programming Expertise of the Firm to the listing under "Design, Understanding of Project/Problem".

Mr. Anderson noted that after the question and answer period of today's pre-proposal conference, a tour of the existing courthouse will be held; it was noted that any questions received after 4:30 p.m. today, March 11, 1994, will not be answered.

At this time, the pre-proposal conference was opened to questions from the floor:

1. QUESTION FROM JAN PETERSON, PETERSON DESIGN

Mr. Peterson asked if it would be possible, rather than calling Joe Lopez, to get a list of the signees at today's meeting? ANSWER BY MS. LUEHRING: Yes, we can provide the list of attendees at this meeting, along with the Addendum.

2. QUESTION FROM CARL GLASER OF GLASER ASSOCIATES:

Mr. Glaser asked if the list of consultants from Joe Lopez are required to be in attendance at this meeting in order to be qualified; if one of those consultants is not at this meeting today, they cannot be considered? ANSWER BY MS. LUEHRING: This is a mandatory pre-proposal conference, only those firms present at this meeting will be allowed to submit proposals. CLARIFICATION FROM MR. ANDERSON: If a firm present at this meeting uses an individual on that list, that is acceptable; but that firm independently cannot submit a proposal unless they are at this meeting. CLARIFICATION FROM MR. GLAZER: You have to be at this meeting to be Prime; if you are at this meeting, then it is wide-open as far as who you can select as a consultant, and that consultant need not be at this meeting? ANSWER: Correct.

3. QUESTIONS FROM RON TAYLOR OF OMNI GROUP, INC.

A) Mr. Taylor requested clarification regarding the nature of fee proposal; for instance, under the Work Plan Outline, the first task of the project appears to be the development of the Work Plan which would define the scope of the project, the task to be done. Given that, what is the nature of the fee proposal you are looking for preliminary to the development of such a work plan? ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: The Committee's responsibility will be to identify, from the proposal you send to us, any areas that the Committee may wish to modify If the scope of work needs to be modified, that has to be done and will be done in the negotiations.

B) Mr. Taylor asked, with regard to the scale of current operations, if information is available on the number of employees and square footage occupied by site location. ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: The 1985 study is available for review here today; also, a copy is on reserve at the Fort Collins Library for your review. If requested, this information could be loose bound and upon request could be checked out of the Courthouse for two days for copying. This can be available by next Wednesday, if requested. ANSWER FROM MS. LUEHRING: There are approximately 1100 employees in the County at the present time; and she noted that the 1985 Study does not include Blue Spruce, which occupies Social Services and the Health Department. However, Mr. Anderson stated that these two departments are not on the list of Governmental Offices which will be included in the Governmental Building.

C) Mr. Taylor asked if information is available regarding the number of Courtrooms currently available. ANSWER FROM MR. COURTNEY: They did an informal preliminary needs analysis study and that information can also be made available. Mr. Anderson requested a copy of this information and it will be included with the 1985 study that is available for your review.

D) Mr. Taylor asked if a specific site is in mind for the new site that is being considered between Fort Collins and Loveland, or do you expect the consultant to evaluate a variety of sites to determine the best candidates or will this be done based on a generic site that is not site specific which will allow you to determine operational costs, advantages and disadvantages, etc. ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: It will be a generic site.

4. QUESTIONS FROM GEORGE BRELIG OF ROBB, BRENNER & BRELIG:

A) Mr. Brelig asked if the list of persons who will be on the Selection Committee be available? ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: No, because all the questions need to come through the Facilities Management Office; the Committee will be balanced through the Courts and the Governmental Office representation; both of these two areas are of equal importance and will be addressed as such.

B) Mr. Brelig asked if the Selection Committee will be the same as the Study Working Group or is that still to be determined? ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: That still is to be determined.

C) On Page 6, it states that the Design Team will meet regularly with the Study Working Group to discuss progress, etc., Mr. Brelig asked how regularly these meetings will occur and will they be based on the Work Plan Schedule as outlined? ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: It will be based on the Work Plan Schedule as outlined and it will be up to the respondent to be as definitive as he wishes; they could occur weekly, depending on the phase of work, and then monthly depending the progress.

D) Mr. Brelig noted that the proposal asked that at least one principal architect be assigned that can meet certain criteria, which has been outlined very clearly; can that be assumed to mean that the experience is very heavy; are you looking for one key individual or can that be key persons who collectively can meet that specific criteria? Does that have to be the prime architect or can that be within the consultants that the architect is carrying. ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: That can be collective.

5. QUESTIONS FROM KARL BERG OF HOOVER BERG DESMOND:

Mr. Berg noted that the selection process is very well defined; you are now looking for someone to do the first initial phases through the programming in the initial planning. Should the project be approved by the voters, you will then go thru another RFP or process to select the designer of the project. Mr. Berg stated that this is an unusual process; normally, in the event the governmental agency is pleased with the work of the design professional at the end of the programming and planning process and they enter into negotiations with that firm. Can you tell us why specifically you have chosen to put out a second RFP as opposed to using the more conventional process? The reason for the question is that most of the people who would even give a thought to submitting on the second package, would assume it is probably a lock for the firm that had done the initial work. ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: There are variables involved that we don't know at this point in time; the intent was to keep the options open for the County. If there is a long time span and the voters say "No" in 1995, it could be ten years from now before we proceed with the proposal; the firm that did the planning could have changed over time and cease to exist. ANSWER FROM LUEHRING: Putting out a second RFP is an option to the County at this point in time; that is what we are planning on doing but that does not mean we cannot go to the Board of County Commissioners and ask them to contract with the firm that has done the preliminary proposal; it will be their decision.

6. QUESTIONS FROM CARR BIEKER OF THE ARCHITECTS STUDIO:

A) Mr. Bieker asked if they can tell, in any form, the magnitude and scope of what you anticipate this long-range plan to entail? Do you have any idea of long term costs for undertaking the total project or pieces or parts of in phases? ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: We really don't; that needs to be definitive and it wouldn't benefit anyone to throw out numbers at this time. Mr. Bieker stated that he was asking about construction costs. ANSWER FROM MS. LUEHRING: That is a variable that we don't have any control over because we could remodel what we currently have or start from scratch--there are so many variables.

7. MORE QUESTIONS FROM GEORGE BRELIG OF ROBB BRENNER & BRELIG:

You talked about this preliminary pricing fee that you would like us to include, with all the variables and different side options, etc. which you may or may not ask us to explore, how definitive are you wanting us to be; once we go thru the Work Plan, which you describe as after the contracts are awarded, that would or could obviously affect the pricing schedule? Can you give us some help on what we can do to help you to analyze that? ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: I would like to have the proposal be as specific as you can be and then the numbers and pricing will align itself with how specific you were with your services and we are asking for you to use your expertise in knowing how much time and what kind of involvement and what kind of reimbursement you would need for that service. Be as definitive as you can. STATEMENT FROM MS. LUEHRING: On the pricing schedule, for example the Work Plan, you should list the estimated hours at total cost and underneath that say that any additional hours will be billed at so much per hour so we will have a feel how much time you are putting into that part of the proposal and what your base cost is on that part, and then we know how much it is going to cost if we exceed your estimated time frame.

8. QUESTION FROM BOB SUTTER OF ARCHITECTURAL HORIZONS:

Mr. Sutter asked, in terms of the fee proposal, do you want us to address costs beyond the pre-planning, programming phase, or simply provide the fee proposal for the pre-planning, programming phase only? We foresee difficulty in providing a fee because there is a different fee for a remodel project over a new construction project. We can be tighter if you are only going to address the immediate needs; i.e., only pre-planning and programming fee. ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: That is exactly how the Committee felt and that it was put together this way. Mr. Sutter asked then that we would not be providing fee services for doing construction drawings and contract administration. MR. ANDERSON: That is exactly right.

9. ANOTHER QUESTION FROM CARR BIECKER OF THE ARCHITECTS STUDIO:

You asked for consultant involvement during the period November 1995, can you describe what your expectations of the consultant might be? ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: It depends on who that consultant is--is the prime person that is the long-range planner the consultant? There are so many variables it is hard to address this question. They will very likely look at that consultant's costs on a hourly basis, look at what kind of involvement they might have, as far as public presentations to the voters, and then a negotiation phase will follow.

10. QUESTION FROM JOHN ANDERSON OF ANDERSON MASON DALE P.C.:

Mr. Anderson asked if there was good documentation of as-builts on existing facilities, are they in good shape and can we assume that they will be available? ANSWER FROM MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we have everything but electrical.

11. REQUEST FROM CARR BIEKER OF THE ARCHITECTS STUDIO:

Mr. Bieker asked for a description of the over-crowding conditions as they exist now. MR. COURTNEY described in detail the existing overcrowded conditions and noted they are at the max right now.

Mr. Anderson noted that the Committee will be considering costs and different ways to address the critical issues of circulation and security.

12. QUESTION FROM RUSTY DICKERSON OF PHILLIPS SWAGER ASSOCIATES:

Mr. Dickerson asked how many courts do you operate now? ANSWER FROM MR. COURTNEY: There are four District Judges, three County Judges, one and a half District Magistrates, one full-time Magistrate that handles traffic and one-quarter time Small Claims Magistrate, for a total of ten and three-quarters Judgeship positions.

The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m. for a tour of the Courthouse.

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